New Delhi, Oct 6 The Delhi High Court has rejected a petition seeking cancellation of bail granted to an accused, observing that social media posts celebrating the release on bail and the mere presence of co-accused near the petitioner’s residence do not justify revoking of bail without clear evidence of intimidation.
A single-judge Bench of Justice Ravinder Dudeja was hearing a petition filed by Zafer Alam, under Section 483(3) of the BNSS, alleging that the accused, Manish, and his associates created fear after their release, flaunting weapons on social media and appearing near the petitioner’s home. The petitioner’s counsel contended that the accused “continuously intimidated the complainant and her family with knives and other deadly weapons, thereby endangering their safety,” and pointed out an ongoing personal animosity between the parties due to a prior incident involving the petitioner’s son.
It was further argued that the accused and his associates posted videos and status messages on social media celebrating their release on bail.
On the other hand, Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) Aman Usman, countered that “the petitioner neither filed any application before the Sessions Court for cancellation of bail nor made any complaint of threat or criminal intimidation after the grant of bail,” rendering the allegations unsubstantiated.
In its order, Justice Dudeja, rejecting the petition, observed, “Rejection of bail in a non-bailable case at an initial stage and cancellation of bail already granted have to be considered and dealt with on different basis. Very cogent and overwhelming circumstances are necessary for an order directing the cancellation of bail already granted.”
The Delhi High Court said that celebrations on social media or the presence of co-accused near the petitioner’s residence could not be grounds for cancellation “without there being any specific threat or intimidation extended to the petitioner”.
“In the absence of any complaint being made to the police, the allegations of threat are not substantiated. Therefore, that being so, there is no material on record to substantiate the allegations of threats extended by respondent No. 2 (accused),” observed Justice Dudeja, dismissing the plea for cancellation of bail.
The accused, who had been in custody since March 13, was granted bail subject to conditions, including refraining from threatening witnesses or tampering with evidence or indulging in any other criminal activity in future.
Disclaimer: This post has been auto-published from an agency feed without any modifications to the text and has not been reviewed by an editor