The Punjab and Haryana High Court has cancelled the bail of a murder accused after finding that he allegedly threatened the complainant and his family through Instagram and Facebook after being released from custody.
Justice Vikram Aggarwal held that the accused had breached a crucial condition imposed while granting him regular bail on January 28, which prohibited him from directly or indirectly threatening, inducing or making promises to anyone acquainted with the facts of the case.
The September 23 order noted that the accused allegedly began sending threats soon after his release and also uploaded photographs of the complainant’s sister on social media.
Threats Allegedly Sent After Release On Bail
According to the case record, the accused is facing trial for the alleged murder of Shyam Lal, a servant of the complainant’s cousin Mukul, on June 23, 2023. The complainant was allegedly present at the time of the incident and also suffered an injury.
After the accused secured regular bail, the complainant alleged that he and his father began receiving threatening and defamatory messages from the accused’s Instagram account. Similar messages were allegedly sent through Facebook.
The court recorded that one of the messages included the warning, “band bja dunga iske chakkar me to sabki”.
The accused was also alleged to have posted photographs of the complainant’s sister and sent messages to her. He allegedly threatened the complainant’s brother that photographs of his sister would be uploaded on social media if he appeared before the trial court to depose against him.
Objectionable messages were allegedly sent to another sister of the complainant as well.
The complainant lodged a complaint on March 4. A fresh FIR was subsequently registered on March 17, following which the accused was arrested and remained in custody.
Court Finds Bail Condition Violated
Advocate Pranshul Dhull, appearing for the complainant, argued that the alleged direct threats to the complainant and his family justified cancellation of bail.
Advocate Samay Sandhawalia, representing the accused, opposed the plea and submitted that bail should not be cancelled on the basis of a solitary instance.
The High Court acknowledged that cancellation of bail is a drastic measure that should not be resorted to lightly and referred to the settled principles laid down by the Supreme Court on the issue.
However, the court found that the accused had violated the most essential condition attached to the January 28 bail order by allegedly threatening the complainant’s side.
It observed that allowing him to continue on bail despite such conduct could result in an untoward incident.
Court Directs Examination Of Mental State If Required
During the proceedings, the court also interacted with the accused through video conferencing and observed that his behaviour appeared abnormal and his speech was incoherent.
The court directed the jail authorities or other concerned authorities to have his mental state examined if considered necessary.
The High Court ultimately cancelled the bail granted to the accused on January 28 and directed the authorities to take the necessary steps to comply with the order.
