Case at a Glance
A man accused of murder in a 2023 Kaithal case was granted regular bail by the High Court in January 2026 on the condition that he would not threaten or induce witnesses. Within weeks, the complainant alleged, he began sending threatening messages from his Instagram and Facebook IDs, threatened the complainant’s brother in person and pressured the family not to testify; a fresh FIR followed and he was arrested. Holding that he had violated “the most essential condition of the order granting bail,” Justice Vikram Aggarwal allowed the complainant’s petition under Section 483(2) BNSS and cancelled the bail.
FIR No. 222 dated 24 June 2023 was registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Kaithal, under Sections 302, 323, 341 and 427 IPC, provisions of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and Section 27 of the Arms Act. Respondent No. 2 was accused of killing Shyam Lal, a servant of the complainant’s cousin. On 28 January 2026, in CRA-S-2999-2025, the High Court released him on regular bail subject to conditions, including that he would not induce or threaten witnesses, would notify any change of address and would not leave India without permission.
The complainant, Sourabh Narula, then approached the High Court under Section 483(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking cancellation of that bail. He alleged that after release the accused sent threatening and defamatory messages from his Instagram and Facebook IDs, threatened the complainant’s brother in person on 2 March 2026, and threatened to harm the family’s reputation if the complainant deposed. A complaint dated 4 March 2026 led to FIR No. 72 dated 17 March 2026 at the same police station under BNS provisions, and the State’s status report confirmed that the accused had been arrested and was in custody.
The Key Question Before the Court
Can bail already granted in a murder case be cancelled when, after release, the accused allegedly threatens the complainant and his family through social media and in person, leading to a fresh FIR?
A drastic step, but justified by post-bail conduct
The Court began from the settled position that “cancellation of bail is a drastic measure and should not be easily resorted to,” and that it is “a harsh order because it interferes with the liberty of the individual.” It relied on the three-judge Bench decision in Aslam Babalal Desai v. State of Maharashtra, (1992) 09 SC CK 0013, 1993 AIR SC 1, which lists misuse of liberty, interference with investigation and threatening witnesses among illustrative grounds for cancellation, and on Ms. P v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2022) 05 SC CK 0014, 2022 AIR SC 2183, which reiterated those principles and recognised that post-bail conduct making a fair trial unlikely can warrant cancellation. Sanjay Kumar Jangid v. Mukesh Kumar Agarwal (Criminal Appeal No. 2381 of 2025, decided 2 May 2025) was also cited.
Applying those tests, the Court noted that after the accused was released, “Immediately thereafter, respondent No.2 started extending threats to the petitioner and his family members,” and that the complaint and the fresh FIR were consistent with these allegations. Respondent No. 2 did not file a reply. When he appeared through video conferencing, the Court recorded that “his behaviour was found to be abnormal and speech incoherent,” leaving it to the jail or other authorities to examine his mental condition if needed. The Court was “of the firm opinion that respondent No.2 cannot be permitted to remain on bail,” since otherwise “any untoward incident can take place,” and held that “he has violated the most essential condition of the order granting bail by threatening the complainant side.”
What the Court Actually Held
- Cancellation of bail is a drastic measure, but an accused’s conduct after release can justify it.
- Threatening the complainant and his family after release, through Instagram and Facebook messages and in person, breached the most essential condition of the bail order.
- A fresh FIR over the threats and the State’s status report supported the complainant’s allegations; the accused filed no reply.
- The petition was allowed, the regular bail granted on 28 January 2026 in CRA-S-2999-2025 was cancelled, and the State was directed to take the necessary steps.
Why This Judgment Matters
- It shows that bail conditions against threatening witnesses are enforceable and that social-media threats count as much as threats in person.
- It confirms that complainants, not only the State, can move the High Court under Section 483(2) BNSS to cancel bail.
- It applies the Aslam Babalal Desai and Ms. P tests to modern online intimidation of witnesses.
What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?
For Complainants and Witnesses
- Preserve screenshots and IDs of threatening social-media messages and report them to the police promptly.
- A fresh FIR and a police status report make a bail-cancellation plea far stronger.
- Threats to family members can also be grounds for cancellation.
For Counsel
- Frame cancellation pleas around specific breaches of the bail conditions and post-bail conduct, not the merits of the original grant.
- Rely on Aslam Babalal Desai and Ms. P v. State of M.P. for the illustrative grounds.
- For the accused, a reply on record matters; here none was filed.
Key Takeaways
- Bail can be cancelled for misuse of liberty after release.
- Threatening witnesses or the complainant’s family is a classic ground for cancellation.
- Online threats via Instagram or Facebook are treated as seriously as in-person threats.
- Section 483(2) BNSS gives the High Court and Sessions Court the power to cancel bail.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can bail be cancelled after it has been granted?
Yes. Under Section 483(2) BNSS (formerly Section 439(2) CrPC), the High Court or Court of Session can direct that a person released on bail be arrested and committed to custody. Courts use this power sparingly, typically where the accused misuses liberty, tampers with evidence or threatens witnesses.
Who can apply for cancellation of bail?
In this case the complainant filed the petition, and the State supported it with a status report. The Court acted on the complainant’s petition.
Does a social-media threat count as threatening a witness?
Here the Court treated threatening messages from the accused’s Instagram and Facebook IDs, along with an in-person threat and a resulting FIR, as a breach of the bail condition against threatening witnesses.
Conclusion
The ruling is a straightforward application of settled bail-cancellation law, but it is a useful reminder that liberty on bail comes with conditions. Once the Court found that the accused had turned to intimidating the complainant’s family, online and in person, the drastic remedy of cancellation followed.
Practical takeaway: If an accused on bail threatens you or your family, report it immediately, get an FIR or complaint on record, preserve digital evidence, and seek cancellation under Section 483(2) BNSS.
For more judgments, legal opinions and case analysis, visit courtkutchehry.com