The Delhi High Court has held that merely celebrating one’s release on bail on social media platforms cannot, by itself, constitute a valid reason for cancellation of bail, unless it is accompanied by a specific threat or act of intimidation directed toward the complainant.

Justice Ravinder Dudeja made this observation while dismissing a plea seeking cancellation of bail granted to Manish, who was accused in a case involving house trespass, theft, and mischief by fire. The complainant, Zafeer Alam, had approached the High Court seeking cancellation of bail granted by the trial court, alleging violation of the bail conditions.

The accused had been booked under Sections 436 (mischief by fire or explosive substance), 457 (house trespass or house-breaking by night), 380 (theft in dwelling house) and 34 (common intention) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The trial court, while granting bail, had directed the accused not to threaten witnesses, tamper with evidence, or engage in any criminal activity.

The complainant contended that the accused and his associates had flouted these conditions by intimidating him and his family, posting pictures with weapons, and flaunting knives and other deadly arms on social media. It was further alleged that they celebrated their release by uploading videos and status messages that created an atmosphere of fear in the locality and amounted to mocking the justice system.

However, the Court found no sufficient basis to substantiate these allegations. It emphasized that the parameters for rejecting bail at the initial stage are different from those applicable when seeking cancellation of bail already granted. “Very cogent and overwhelming circumstances are necessary for an order directing cancellation of bail already granted,” Justice Dudeja noted.

The Court further held that from the screenshots produced, it was not evident whether the photos or videos were actually intended to threaten or intimidate the complainant. It also clarified that the mere presence of a co-accused near the complainant’s residence cannot automatically justify cancellation of bail.

“The argument that the accused or his associates celebrated their release on bail by uploading videos and status messages on social media platforms cannot be a ground for cancellation of bail without there being any specific threat or intimidation to the complainant,” the Court observed.

Justice Dudeja also noted that no complaint had been lodged with the police regarding any alleged threats. In the absence of any police complaint or corroborative evidence, the Court found no material to support the claim that the accused had violated bail conditions.

“In the absence of any complaint being made to the police, the allegations of threat are not substantiated. Therefore, there is no material on record to justify cancellation of bail of respondent No. 2,” the Court concluded while dismissing the plea.