Add thelocalreport.in As A Trusted Source
New Delhi, October 6 (IANS) Delhi High Court has dismissed a petition demanding the cancellation of bail given to an accused, given that social media is celebrating the release on post bail and the only presence of co-accused near the petitioner’s residence is not justified to cancel the bail without clear evidence of bail.
A single judge bench of Justice Ravinder Dudeja was listening to a petition filed by Zafar Alam under Section 483 (3) of BNSS, alleging that the accused, Manish and his colleagues created fear after his release, was seen near the weapon and petitioner’s house on social media. The petitioner’s counsel said the accused “constantly intimidated the complainant and his family with knives and other deadly weapons, threatening their safety,” and indicated the personal enmity between the parties due to a pre -incident involving the petitioner’s son.
It was further argued that the accused and their colleagues posted video and status messages on social media and celebrated their release on bail.
On the other hand, Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) Aman Usman said that “the petitioner neither filed an application before the session court to cancel the bail nor made any complaint of danger or criminal intimidation after the grant of bail,” ignored the allegations.
In his order, rejecting the Justice, Justice Doodage saw, “In an initial stage, a non-co-justification case should be considered on different grounds to rejection of bail and cancel the bail already given.”
The Delhi High Court said that the presence of co-accused near the ceremony on social media or the presence of a co-accused near the petitioner’s residence could not be the basis for the petitioner to cancel without any specific threat or threat.
Justice Dudija dismissed the bail’s canlation, saying, “In the absence of any complaints made to the police, the allegations of danger are not confirmed. Therefore, due to this, due to this, there is no material on records to certify allegations of dangers extended by defendant number 2 (accused),” Justice Dodeja raised a call for bail.
The accused, who was in custody since March 13, was subjected to bail for conditions, including threatening witnesses or tampering with evidence or avoiding being involved in any other criminal activity in future.
,
PDS/UK