ORDER

This criminal revision application has been filed against the order dated 16.03.2017 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge -VII, Patna in cancellation bail application no. 5027 of 2016, whereby and whereunder, learned court below has cancelled the the anticipatory bail of the petitioner.

2. Facts in short is that an F.I.R. was lodged by opposite party no. 2 with respect to an offence under Sections 341, 323, 504, 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act with respect to demand of dowry and cruelty and torture at the hands of the petitioner. It further appears that petitioner moved for grant of anticipatory bail in 5027/2016 before the learned District & Sessions Judge, Patna, which was transferred to the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge -VII, Patna for disposal. It further appears that during pendency of the anticipatory bail application, both the parties reached to a settlement/compromise and a compromise petition dated 22.08.2016 was filed before the learned Additional Sessions Judge -VII, Patna and the learned Additional Sessions Judge -VII, Patna on the basis of the said compromise petition, allowed anticipatory bail to the petitioner vide order dated 05.09.2016 passed in A.B.P. No. 5027/2016. Thereafter, opposite party no. 2 started residing in her sasural. It further appears that opposite party no. 2 after living sometimes in her matrimonial house, filed a petition for cancellation of anticipatory bail of the petitioner on 31.01.2017. Learned court below after issuance of notice to the petitioner and after hearing both the parties vide order on 16.03.2017 in cancellation of bail application no. 5027/2016, has cancelled the bail bond of the petitioner.

3. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has preferred present revision application.

4. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the learned court below has erred in cancelling the anticipatory bail earlier granted to the petitioner as he has not followed the parameters, which has been provided under Section 439(2) Cr.P.C., as the violation of compromise does not come under the parameters for cancellation of bail. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Biman Chhatterjee vs. Sanchita Chhetterjee and Another reported in (2004) 3 SCC 388 as well as the Judgment of this High Court in the case of Md. Mustafa @ Md. Mustafa Sah vs State of Bihar reported in 2015 (3) PLJR 772 [: 2015 (3) BLJ 207 (PHC)] and submitted that the order cancelling the anticipatory bail is against the settled principle of law. Further submission is that even though if it is believed that there is application for violation of compromise, then also, learned Additional Sessions Judge -VII, Patna ought to have enquired in to the matter and only after enquiry, he ought to have cancelled the bail bond of the petitioner but without considering the same, in very mechanical manner, the order has been passed cancelling the anticipatory bail of the petitioner, which is not sustainable in the eye of law.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party no. 2 has supported the order and submitted that there is no illegality or impropriety in the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge – VII, Patna.

6. However, after some argument, both the parties have jointly prayed that the parties may be provided another chance to reconcile the dispute.

7. Heard the parties. The provisions for cancellation of bail has been provided under Section 439(2) Cr.P.C. but it is well settled that the power for cancellation of bail be utilized only when there are cogent and overwhelming circumstances for cancellation of bail granted to the accused as the order jeopardize the personal liberty of a person, as such, the order for cancellation of bail should not be passed in routine or mechanical manner. It is also well settled that the param