The Madras High Court recently upheld a trial court's decision to cancel the bail granted to an extortion accused after taking note of Instagram posts in which he was glorified as a "King" and shown brandishing a weapon-like object [Janny Vs State].
Justice N Ramesh explained that such conduct created a real possibility of witnesses being intimidated.
"Within months of his release (on bail) he is publicly projected, on pages bearing his name and followed by thousands, as the 'king' of Vellore, with a weapon in hand. That projection has a direct bearing on whether the witnesses who remain to be examined will come forward and depose freely," the Court said.
It proceeded to hold that such conduct is sufficient to cancel the accused person's bail.
"It is precisely the kind of circumstance which renders continued liberty no longer conducive to a fair trial. The likelihood of the witnesses being overawed is real, and not a matter of speculation ... I am satisfied that the petitioner has misused the liberty granted to him, and that his continued liberty is not conducive to a fair trial," the Court held.
The Court made the observation while dealing with a plea by Janny alias Janny Paulrajan, who is facing trial in a case involving allegations of extortion and setting fire to property.
The accused had been granted bail by the High Court in December 2025 after spending about five years in custody. He continued to be in custody for some more weeks since he was also under arrest in connection with some other criminal cases. He was released from prison in January 2026.
In June 2026, the Katpadi Police registered a fresh case after a social media cell flagged photographs and videos allegedly showing him with weapons. He was arrested shortly thereafter in Andhra Pradesh, where, according to the police report, he was attending a birthday celebration involving more than 200 people.
The prosecution then moved the trial court seeking cancellation of bail. The trial court allowed the plea, finding that his involvement in a fresh grave offence, read with his antecedents, amounted to misuse of the liberty granted to him.
The accused challenged the bail cancellation before the High Court.
He argued that these photos and videos were taken during a personal trip and that the object he was holding was only an air gun used at a balloon-shooting stall. He also contended that he had neither threatened witnesses nor tampered with evidence after his release.
In a September 24 ruling, however, the High Court held that his conduct could not be viewed merely as private amusement since several prosecution witnesses were yet to be examined.
The Court clarified that it was not deciding whether the object seen in the photographs was actually a firearm, whether the ingredients of the fresh criminal case were made out, or who operated the Instagram pages. Those issues were left to the investigation and trial.
Nevertheless, the Court found that the public projection of the accused as someone to be feared could affect witnesses in the pending trial.
The High Court proceeded to uphold the trial court's decision to cancel the accused man's bail, even though some flaws were noted in the trial court's reasoning.
It further directed the trial court to conclude hearing the case within six months, and that the case be heard on a day to day basis as far as practicable.
It also directed the Vellore Superintendent of Police to examine the Instagram pages and similar pages projecting the accused as a person to be feared or followed.
“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," the Court observed.
The petitioner (accused) was represented by advocate B Mohan.
The State was represented by Government Advocate R Rajasekaran.
[Read Judgment]