Non-fulfilment of the terms of a compromise cannot be the basis for cancelling bail, as per the judgments in Biman Chatterjee vs. Sanchita Chatterjee and Another and Amr Chouhan @ Amar Singh Chouhan vs. State of Jharkhand and Another.

JUDGMENT :

SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.

1. In both the cases, common order of cancellation of anticipatory bail dated 01.07.2019 is under challenge. In Cr. M.P. No. 2332 of 2019, the husband of opposite party no. 2 has challenged the said order and in Cr. M.P. No. 2165 of 2019, the said order has been challenged by the father-in-law, mother-in-law and brother-in-law of opposite party no. 2 respectively.

2. Heard Mr. Awinash Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mrs. Vandana Bharti and Mr. V.S. Sahay, learned counsel for the State and Mr. Tarun Kumar No. 1, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2.

3. Both the petitions have been filed for quashing the order dated 01.07.2019 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous Case No. 146/2019 by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-XIII, Ranchi whereby the anticipatory bail granted vide order dated 28.03.2019 in A.B.P. Nos. 335/2019, 336/2019 and 452/2019 has been cancelled. The prayer is also made to restore the order dated 28.03.2019 passed in the aforesaid A.B.P.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioner in Cr. M.P. No. 2332 of 2019 has filed A.B.P. No. 335/2019 which was heard along with A.B.P. Nos. 336/2019 and 452/2019 and all the A.B.P. have been allowed by the common order dated 28.03.2019 and on the basis of the terms and conditions of compromise, the said order has been passed. He further submits that the matter was referred for mediation and the dispute was settled on certain terms and conditions. He further submits that as per the order dated 28.03.2019, contained in Annexure-2 and the mediation report, contained in Annexure-3, it was specifically agreed by the petitioners and opposite party no. 2 and direction was also given by the concerned court that on the date of furnishing bail bond by the husband of opposite party no. 2, he will took away his wife to Hazaribag where he resides and do his business and on that ground, the anticipatory bail was granted. He also submits that the petitioner has took away opposite party no. 2 to Hazaribag. He further submits that on 05.05.2019, the opposite party no. 2 demanded a sum of Rs. 20,000/- which was denied by the husband in view of the fact that his business was not in progress. The opposite party no. 2 became aggressive, torn her clothes and caused self inflicted injury on her person and also caused injury to her husband. He also submits that in spite of best efforts made by the husband and in-laws, the opposite party no. 2 is not living peacefully. He submits that a petition was filed by the opposite party no. 2 and on considering that petition, the impugned order dated 01.07.2019 has been passed. He further submits that once the anticipatory bail is granted, in casual manner and particularly in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the learned court was not justified in cancelling the anticipatory bail.

5. On the other hand, Mr. Tarun Kumar No. 1, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 submits that the terms and conditions of the compromise has not been fulfilled and therefore the learned court has passed the impugned order. He further submits that even the order passed in the Maintenance Case is not complied and the terms and conditions of the settlement has not been followed by the petitioners and in that view of the matter, the learned court has cancelled the anticipatory bail.

6. Mr. V.S. Sahay and Mrs. Vandana Bharti, learned counsel for the State submits that the learned court has considered that the compromise has not been fulfilled, which was the basis for grant of anticipatory bail and that is why the anticipatory bail has been cancelled.

7. In view of the above submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, this Court has gone through the materials on the record and finds that the husband of opposite party no. 2 has taken his wife to Hazaribag and thereafter quarrel started between them and prima-facie, it appears that there was instigation by opposite party no. 2. This aspect of th