Celebrating Bail On Social Media Not Ground For Cancellation Without Specific Threat To Complainant: Delhi HC [Read Order]

New Delhi: The Delhi High Court has ruled that mere celebration of bail by an accused or their associates on social media platforms does not constitute sufficient ground for bail cancellation unless there is a specific threat or act of intimidation directed at the complainant.

Justice Ravinder Dudeja dismissed a petition seeking cancellation of bail, observing that screenshots posted on social media without demonstrable intent to intimidate cannot justify revoking bail already granted.

The court addressed CRL.M.C. 5698/2025 filed by complainant Zafeer Alam seeking cancellation of bail granted to Manish (Respondent No. 2) by the Sessions Court in FIR No. 193/2025 registered at Narela Industrial Area Police Station under Sections 436, 457, 380 & 34 IPC.

The Sessions Court had granted bail to the accused after noting that the investigation was complete, the chargesheet had been filed, and the accused had been in custody since March 13, 2025. Bail conditions included a prohibition against threatening prosecution witnesses, tampering with evidence, or engaging in future criminal activity.

The complainant’s counsel, Deepika Sheoran, alleged that the accused violated bail conditions by creating an atmosphere of fear in the colony and issuing threats by posting pictures with weapons on social media. She claimed that co-accused Gaurav was seen outside the petitioner’s residence on June 12, 2025.

The counsel argued that the accused continuously intimidated the complainant’s family with knives and deadly weapons, motivated by personal animosity stemming from an incident in which a close associate of the accused was killed during an attack on the complainant’s son.

The petitioner alleged that the accused and his associates “celebrated their release on bail by uploading their videos and status messages on social media, flaunting lethal weapons and issuing veiled threats to the complainant in brazen disregard for the rule of law.”

Additional Public Prosecutor Aman Usman opposed the application, pointing out that the petitioner neither filed any application before the Sessions Court for bail cancellation nor lodged any complaint regarding threats or criminal intimidation after bail was granted, rendering the allegations unsubstantiated.

Justice Dudeja outlined the legal framework for bail cancellation, stating: “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 a different basis. Very cogent and overwhelming circumstances are necessary for an order directing the cancellation of bail already granted.”

The court identified grounds for bail cancellation as “interference or attempt to interfere with the due course of administration of justice, evasion or attempt to evade the due course of justice, or abuse of concession granted to the accused in any manner.”

Addressing the social media allegations, Justice Dudeja held that “the argument that respondent No. 2 or his associates celebrated their release on bail by uploading videos and status messages on social media platforms cannot be the ground for cancellation of bail without there being any specific threat or intimidation extended to the petitioner.”

The court examined screenshots placed on record but found they did not establish whether they were posted by the accused with the intent to intimidate the complainant.

Justice Dudeja noted that bail could not be cancelled “merely because one of the co-accused was seen in front of the residence of the petitioner on 12.06.2025.”

Crucially, the court emphasized that “admittedly, no complaint has been made to the police regarding any threats having been extended by respondent No. 2. In the absence of any complaint being made to the police, the allegations of threat are not substantiated.”

Finding “no material on record to substantiate the allegations of threats extended by respondent No. 2,” Justice Dudeja concluded there was “no justified reason for cancellation of bail.”

The petition was dismissed as lacking merit.

Ms. Deepika Sheoran and Mr. Abhishek Gahlyan, Advocates, appeared for the petitioner, while Mr. Aman Usman (APP) with Ms. Aditi Swami, Advocate, represented the State.

Case Title: Zafeer Alam vs. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr.

[Read Order]