Supreme Court Refuses To Cancel Bail Of Man Who Posted ‘Money And Power’ Video After Release

The Bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Augustine George Masih, and Sandeep Mehta observed that the accused appeared to be celebrating his release after securing bail from the Punjab and Haryana High Court.

“Alright. It’s an achievement. He gained his liberty, he was celebrating,” the Court observed.

Justice Nath, in a lighter vein, further remarked: “If he had money and power, he would have never gotten inside. The money was the lawyer’s fee.”

The proceedings arose from a challenge to the April 23, 2026 order of the Punjab and Haryana High Court granting regular bail to accused Vishal in a murder case.

AoR Siddharth Mittal appeared for the petitioner.

Plea challenged fifth bail petition

The petitioner challenged the High Court's decision, contending that Vishal was specifically named in the FIR and had been attributed the fatal axe blow to the head of deceased Gajanand.

According to the plea, the incident involved an unlawful assembly which allegedly attacked the complainant side, resulting in the death of Gajanand and injuries to several others. The petitioner further submitted that the High Court had previously recorded, while granting bail to co-accused Sahil in January 2024, that the fatal blow had allegedly been inflicted by Vishal with an axe.

The challenge also pointed out that the April 2026 bail application was Vishal's fifth petition for regular bail before the High Court. It was argued that there had been no substantial change in circumstances warranting a departure from the earlier orders refusing bail.

Reliance was placed on the Supreme Court's decision in Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh, where the Court had held that relevant considerations for grant of bail and cancellation of bail are distinct, while also stressing the need to explain a departure from an earlier rejection of bail.

Plea alleged witness intimidation after bail

The petitioner also alleged that cross-examination of a witness, Dharmender, son of the deceased, remained incomplete and that the accused persons were responsible for delaying the proceedings.

It was further alleged that Dharmender had earlier lodged an FIR against Vishal's father under Section 506 IPC, alleging threats.

The plea contended that the accused's conduct after his release further demonstrated misuse of the liberty granted by the High Court.

According to the petitioner, a celebratory convoy accompanied Vishal after his release and social media posts, including on Facebook, were circulated with claims suggesting that money and influence could secure release from criminal proceedings.

The petitioner argued that such conduct created fear and apprehension among the complainant party and prosecution witnesses.

Plea relied on video evidence

The challenge before the Supreme Court also contended that the entire incident had been captured on video and that the footage allegedly demonstrated Vishal's role in the occurrence.

It was argued that the High Court had failed to properly consider the specific allegations against Vishal, the alleged fatal blow, the pending cross-examination and the fact that the bail application was his fifth.

The petitioner also challenged the High Court's reliance on decisions including Ashim @ Asim Kumar Haranath Bhattacharya v. National Investigation Agency and Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra, arguing that those decisions were distinguishable on facts.

The Supreme Court, however, declined to interfere with the bail order.