The Delhi High Court has held that the act of uploading videos, status messages, or posts celebrating one’s release on bail does not, in itself, justify cancellation of bail, unless there is demonstrable evidence of intimidation, threat, or interference with the complainant. In a matter involving an accused named Manish, who had been granted bail in a case involving alleged offences under Sections 436, 457, 380, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, the complainant filed a petition under Section 483(3) BNSS seeking cancellation of the bail on the ground that the accused and his associates had flaunted their release on social media, posted images with weapons, and allegedly created fear in the neighbourhood.
Justice Ravinder Dudeja considered the petition and observed that cancellation of bail is a serious step that requires “very cogent and overwhelming circumstances.” He emphasized that the standard for cancelling bail once granted is distinct and more stringent than denying bail in the first instance. The court further noted that while the complainant claimed the accused were making threats, no formal complaint had been filed with the police regarding any post-release intimidation. The screenshots placed on record were deemed insufficient to establish an intent to intimidate or coerce the complainant.
The court rejected the notion that celebratory social media posts, on their own, amount to violation of bail conditions or would entitle a court to cancel bail. It stressed that in the absence of a complaint or corroborative material showing a threat or act of intimidation directed at the complainant, there was no basis to disturb the grant of bail. Mere presence of a co-accused near the complainant’s residence or posting of images with weapons, without context or proof of malicious intent, could not justify cancellation.
By dismissing the petition, the High Court reaffirmed that courts must be cautious not to convert permissible expressions of relief or celebration into independent grounds for revoking bail unless they cross the threshold into intimidation or interference with the administration of justice.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.