MP High Court Cancels Bail Of Accused Who Celebrated His Release By Firing Gunshots In Air Amidst A Chanting Mob Garlanding Him

Taking exception to this kind of behavior, Justice G.S. Ahluwalia observed that such glorification of an accused has an adverse effect on the society-

This glorification of an accused on his release by a mob of several persons would necessarily have an adverse effect on the society. Furthermore, the respondent No. 2 was granted bail after considering the period of detention as well as on the condition of depositing an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- as well as on furnishing a cash surety…Glorification of an accused can never be in the interest of society as well as justice dispensation system.

Facts of the case were that the accused person was arrested based on a complaint against him for offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 409, 471 IPC. He was later released on bail by the Court considering his period of detention and on a condition to deposit Rs.5 Lakhs as well as on furnishing cash surety.

On being released, he was received by a mob of more than 100 people that chanted slogans in his favour and welcomed him by garlanding him and touching his feat. He was then brought to his residence in a procession, wherein he stood in an open jeep, waving at the crowd.

Contending that the behaviour of the Respondent/accused had sent a shockwave in the society and had adversely affected the moral of the witnesses in his case, an application was moved for cancellation of his bail.

Defending his acts, the Respondent/accused argued before the Court that merely because his supporters had welcomed him after his release and took his blessings, it did not amount to demonstration of any authority or terror. He further submitted that being welcomed after release of an accused was a "normal feature of the Indian society" and that there was nothing unusual in it. Therefore, he asserted, the application for cancellation of his bail was filed under a misunderstanding and the same was liable to be dismissed.

Examining the submissions of parties and evidence on record, the Court observed that the Respondent/accused had portrayed himself to be a "warrior" upon his release from the jail-

If the video which was video-graphed immediately after his release is considered, then it is clear that he welcomed by a mob of approximately 100 people who not only garlanded him and touched his feet, but were also chanting slogans in his favour and thereafter the respondent No. 2 was taken in his house in a Jeep and in another video, respondent No. 2 is seen firing in air and one of his supporter was heard challenging the applicant. Thus, it is clear that the respondent No. 2 has come out of the jail by projecting him as a warrior.

The Court clarified that a person being granted bail should not be equated to them being acquitted of the charges they stand to be tried for. The Court further noted that the acts of the Respondent upon his release had started making the witnesses in his case turn hostile-

The bail cannot be equated with acquittal. It is merely a temporary respite to the accused so that a perfect balance can be made amongst the rights of an under-trial, the society as well as the complainant…Furthermore, the witnesses have also started turning hostile which may be result of glorification or release of respondent No.2 on bail. Under these circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that the bail granted to the respondent No.2 is liable to be cancelled.

With the aforesaid observations, the Court cancelled the bail of the Respondent/accused for misusing the liberty granted to him. Accordingly, the application was allowed.