Bail cancelled for murder accused for telling woman on Instagram: ‘Band baja dunga’

“The respondent number 2 (accused) started extending threats to the petitioner (complainant) and his family members. I have perused the messages sent from his Instagram ID and Facebook ID in which he, apart from other things, had written ‘band bja dunga iske chakkar me to sabki’. He also uploaded pictures of the sister of the petitioner and sent messages to her as well,” the September 23 order observed. 

Trial in murder case, arrest in separate case

The man is facing trial for the alleged murder of Shyam Lal, who was the servant of the complainant’s cousin, Mukul, on June 23, 2023. The complainant was also allegedly present during the incident and suffered an injury, according to the case record.

The accused was granted regular bail by a coordinate bench on January 28, subject to conditions including that he would not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to anyone acquainted with the facts of the case to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the court or any other authority.

The complainant claimed that after the accused was released on bail, he and his father started receiving threats and defamatory messages from the accused’s Instagram account. They also received similar messages from his Facebook account, where he allegedly used abusive and foul language against the complainant’s sister, including the warning, “band bja dunga iske chakkar me to sabki” (Because of this, everyone is going to get absolutely screwed).

Justice Vikram Aggarwal held that by threatening the complainant’s side, the man had violated the “most essential condition” of his bail order.

The accused allegedly also threatened the complainant’s brother, telling him that if he appeared before the trial court to depose against him, he would upload photographs of his sister on social media. He allegedly sent objectionable messages to the complainant’s other sister as well.

The complainant submitted a complaint on March 4, following which another FIR was registered on March 17, and the accused was arrested and remained in custody.

The complainant’s counsel, advocate Pranshul Dhull, argued that the direct threats to the complainant and his family warranted cancellation of bail. Representing the accused, advocate Samay Sandhawalia argued that bail should not be cancelled based on this solitary instance.

‘Drastic measure’

The court held that the cancellation of bail is a “drastic measure” and should not be easily resorted to, and mentioned that the law regarding cancellation of bail is very well settled while quoting the judgments of the Supreme Court. 

The court highlighted that the accused has violated the most essential condition of the order granting bail by threatening the complainant side and held that he cannot be permitted to remain on bail because, if it is so permitted, “any untoward incident can take place”.

Accordingly, the court cancelled the bail granted to the accused on January 28 and directed the authorities to take necessary steps in compliance with the order.