In a criminal original petition filed before the Madras High Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) praying to set aside an order dated 03-09-2026 by the Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Vellore, a Single Judge Bench of Justice N. Ramesh confirmed the impugned order, cancelling the bail granted to the petitioner.
The petitioner was the fourth accused in a case that arose out of a FIR registered for offences under Sections 384, 435 and 109 Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) read with Sections 4 and 3(i) of the Tamil Nadu Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act, 1992. The prosecution case was one of extortion and of setting fire to property. The petitioner was arrested on 01-11-2021, and was enlarged on bail by an order dated 19-12-2025 by this Court, as he had undergone incarceration for about five years, although the learned Government Advocate opposed it on the ground that he had 51 previous cases.
On 02-06-2026, the Katpadi Police registered and FIR under Section 27(1) of the Arms Act, 1959, after an Instagram page named “Vellore-king-of-king-johnny” carried a photograph of the petitioner, uploaded on 24-05-2026, holding a weapon in a threatening manner, and a video, uploaded on 25-05-2026, taken with a gun resembling an AK-47. The petitioner was arrested on 04-06-2026 when he was celebrating his birthday with more than two hundred persons and bursting crackers. The Inspector added Section 111 of the BNS. Thereafter, the Inspector moved the trial court to cancel the bail.
By the impugned order, the ADJ held that the registration of the crime was not by itself proof of guilt, but that the petitioner’s involvement in a grave offence while on bail, considered with his antecedents, showed that he had abused the liberty granted to him. The bail was cancelled, and the petitioner was directed to surrender within two weeks.
The petitioner submitted that the trial court applied the wrong standard, since cancellation of bail already granted required cogent and overwhelming circumstances arising after release. He submitted that the photographs showed an ordinary balloon-shooting air gun used during a personal trip, that the petitioner had not threatened any witness, tampered with evidence or absconded, and that the condition relied on was imposed in a different case.
ALSO READ: Courts Must Not Impose Personal Moral Views While Deciding Bail: Supreme Court
On the question of whether the trial court could entertain the petition since the bail was granted by this Court, the Court referred to Gurcharan Singh v. State (Delhi Administration) (1978) 1 SCC 118 and stated that it could. Noting that the ADJ had described the petition as one under Section 480(5), BNSS and not Section 483(3), BNSS, the Court stated that the wrong description of the provision does not take away a power that existed. Further, noting that the order under which the petitioner was on bail contained no condition against the commission of an offence, the Court held that the absence of an express condition does not mean that an accused on bail may commit offences without consequence to his bail.
Stating that the Court knew of the antecedents when it granted bail, the Court did not treat them as a supervening circumstance, gave full effect to the twenty-four acquittals, and judged the petitioner’s conduct after 03-01-2026 on its own. It was noted that the picture posted on Instagram, drew more than 4700 likes and comments hailing him as a king, whereas the video showed over 26,000 likes.
The Court stated that the conduct was not a matter of private amusement and that the petitioner stood trial for offences which depended for their commission on fear. It was noted that the remaining witnesses were yet to be examined, and he was publicly projected, on pages bearing his name and followed by thousands, as the ‘king’ of Vellore with a weapon in hand. It was said that such projection had a direct bearing on whether the witnesses would come forward and depose freely, and the likelihood of the witnesses being overawed was real, not a matter of speculation.
The Court found that the impugned order was not free from error, as it rested in part on a condition that was not in the bail order, and on a recovery that the police report did not bear out. It also went further than it should have in saying that the petitioner had committed an offence of organised crime. Even so, the Court held that its jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS was exercised to secure the ends of justice, and not to restore a liberty which the material showed had been misused. The Court was satisfied that the petitioner had misused the liberty granted to him and that his continued liberty was not conducive to a fair trial. It was held that the result reached by the trial court was right.
Hence, the petition was dismissed, and the impugned order was confirmed, subject to the observations in paras 13 and 16. The petitioner was directed to surrender before the ADJ within one week, failing which the respondent was to take him into custody in accordance with law. The trial court was directed to take up the case for examining the remaining prosecution witnesses, to take all steps available in law to secure their attendance, to consider splitting up the case against any absent co-accused, and to conclude the trial within six months.
The petitioner was given liberty to apply afresh for bail upon completion of the examination of the prosecution witnesses, or if the trial was not concluded within the period stated. The Superintendent of Police was directed to cause the Instagram pages to be examined and to take such action as the law permitted. Lastly, the Court said that “The public celebration, before a largely young audience, of a person facing prosecution in serious cases, as a “king” with weapon in hand, lends to criminality a glamour it does not deserve.”
