The Punjab and Haryana High Court has cancelled the bail of a murder accused while holding that the accused violated the essential condition of bail by threatening the complainant and uploading his sister’s picture online.

The High Court was considering a Petition preferred under Section 483(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), seeking cancellation of regular bail granted to the second respondent in a case registered under Sections 302, 323, 341, 427 IPC and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(v) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959.

The Single Bench of Justice Vikram Aggarwal noted, “He also uploaded the pictures of the sister of the petitioner and sent messages to her as well. This led to the filing of a complaint on 04.03.2026 (Annexure P-5) and consequent registration of FIR No.72 dated 17.03.2026. Respondent No.2 is in custody in the said case.”

“In the considered opinion of this Court, he has violated the most essential condition of the order granting bail by threatening the complainant side”, it held.

Advocate Pranshul Dhull represented the Petitioner while Senior Deputy Advocate General Vasundhara Dalal Anand represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The petitioner-complainant alleged that the second respondent committed the murder of one Shyam Lal, who was the servant of one Mukul, cousin of the complainant. It was stated by the complainant that their neighbour Suresh @ Vikcy Sardana was having grudge against their family and community meeting (panchayat) were convened several times. According to complainant the deceased, had come to their home on a scooty, to fetch food for Mukul but the moment he parked his scooty in the street, one Binny carrying an iron road started damaging the two wheeler. According to complainant Shyam Lal informed him (complainant) as well as his cousin Mukul about the incident and when the complainant along with 'Shyam Lal' went to the street, Binny, attacked them with the help of steel rod which hit the hand of complainant. According to complainant, the family members of Binny were instigating him at the time of commission of offence and that the neighbours intervened.

Arguments

The petitioner argued that after the grant of bail, the petitioner and his father started receiving threats and defamatory messages from the second respondent (accused) from his Instagram and Facebook accounts. The petitioner thus contended that his bail was liable to be cancelled.

Reasoning

The Bench reiterated that the cancellation of bail is a drastic measure and should not be easily resorted to. Reference was madd to the principles laid down in Aslam Babalal Desai v. State of Maharashtra (1993) and Sanajy Kumar Jangid and another v. Mukesh Kumar Agarwal & another (2025).

The Bench took note of the messages raising threats and also found that the respondent had uploaded the pictures of the petitioner’s sister and sent messages to her as well. The accused respondent had appeared through video conference and the Bench found his behaviour to be abnormal and speech incoherent. “It would be for the jail authorities or for the authorities concerned to get his mental state examined, if so required”, it stated.

Thus, considering such aspects and also the fact that he threatened the complainant’s side, the Bench allowed the petition and cancelled the bail granted to him.

Cause Title: Sourabh Narula v. State of Haryana (Neutral Citation: 2026:PHC:136743)

Appearance

Petitoner: Advocate Pranshul Dhull

Respondent: Senior Deputy Advocate General Vasundhara Dalal Anand, Advocate Samay Sandhawalia

Click here to read/download Order


Tags: