Bail cancelled after murder accused threatened complainant and shared his sister’s photos on social media

The petitioner, complainant in FIR No. 222 dated 24 June 2023, sought cancellation of the regular bail granted to respondent No. 2 by a coordinate Bench on 28 January 2026 in CRA-S-2999-2025.

The FIR alleged offences under Sections 302, 323, 341 and 427 IPC, Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, and Section 27 of the Arms Act, arising from the assault and subsequent death of Shyam Lal.

After being released on bail, respondent No. 2 allegedly sent threatening and abusive messages to the petitioner and his family members through Instagram and Facebook, including the threat: “band bja dunga iske chakkar me to sabki.”

On the petitioner’s complaint, FIR No. 72 dated 17 March 2026 was registered against respondent No. 2 under Sections 127(2), 230(1), 351(2), 75(2) and 78 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

Whether the alleged threats, abusive communications and attempts to intimidate the complainant and his family constituted misuse of the liberty granted on bail and justified cancellation of bail under Section 483(2) of the BNSS?

Whether the post-bail conduct of respondent No. 2 demonstrated that permitting him to remain at liberty would be unconducive to a fair trial?

The Court exercised jurisdiction under Section 483(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, concerning cancellation of bail.

It applied the principle that cancellation of bail is a drastic measure and must not be ordered lightly, but may be justified where the accused misuses the liberty granted, interferes with the investigation, tampers with evidence, threatens or attempts to influence witnesses, engages in conduct hampering a fair trial, or otherwise becomes unavailable to the process of law.

Relying on Aslam Babalal Desai v. State of Maharashtra, 1993 AIR Supreme Court 1, the Court held that the grounds for cancellation under the relevant bail provisions are illustrative and include threatening witnesses and conduct obstructing a fair investigation.

The Court further relied on Ms. P. v. State of Madhya Pradesh and another, 2022 AIR SC 2183, which recognised that bail may be cancelled where supervening circumstances arise or the accused’s post-bail conduct makes it inappropriate to permit continued liberty during trial, including where the accused threatens witnesses or acts in a manner unconducive to a fair trial.

The Court distinguished between the initial grant of bail and its subsequent cancellation, recognising that cancellation requires supervening circumstances or post-bail conduct demonstrating misuse of liberty.

In the present case, the alleged threats were made immediately after respondent No. 2’s release and were supported by social-media messages, including an explicit threat against the complainant’s family, the uploading of the complainant’s sister’s photographs, and threats intended to deter the petitioner from appearing as a witness.

The conduct resulted in registration of a fresh FIR and the respondent’s arrest.

The Court held that threatening the complainant side violated the essential condition of bail prohibiting inducement, threat or promise to persons acquainted with the facts of the case.

In view of the threats and the possibility of an untoward incident, the Court concluded that continued liberty would prejudice the fairness and safety of the trial process.

Since his conduct was inconsistent with a fair trial and breached the essential conditions of bail, the Court allowed the petition and cancelled the regular bail granted on 28 January 2026 in CRA-S-2999-2025.

The State was directed to take necessary steps to comply with the order.

Pending applications, if any, were disposed of.