IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.
M/s Rungta Mines Ltd. - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand and ors. – Opposite Parties
Cr.M.P. No. 1968 of 2021
Decided On : 18-07-2022
Bail Cancellation - Settlement Agreement - IPC 406, 420 - [IPC 406, IPC 420] - The court discussed the terms and conditions of the settlement agreement and the non-fulfillment of the same, which led to the cancellation of anticipatory bail. The court emphasized the importance of fulfilling the terms of a compromise in the context of granting or cancelling bail, citing relevant case laws and legal provisions.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a petition to quash the order rejecting the application for cancellation of the bail bond of the O.P.No.2. The dispute arose from a land facilitation agreement, and the petitioner alleged offenses under section 406 and 420 IPC. A settlement agreement was reached in mediation, but the O.P.No.2 failed to fulfill the terms, leading to the rejection of the petition.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the matter is pending for final argument, and the issue of settlement and non-fulfillment of terms can be raised during the final argument. The court disposed of the petition with liberty to the petitioner to present the case in the final argument before the concerned court.
Issues: The main issue was the non-fulfillment of the terms of the settlement agreement and its impact on the grant of anticipatory bail.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the fulfillment of terms of a compromise is crucial in the context of granting or cancelling bail, and non-fulfillment of terms cannot be the sole basis for cancelling bail.
Final Decision: The petition was disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to present the case in the final argument before the concerned court.
JUDGMENT :
1. This petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 19.03.2021 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II Chaibasa in Miscellaneous Criminal Application No.326 of 2020 (arising out of A.B.P. No.53 of 2020) in connection with Sadar P.S. Case No.44/2019 (corresponding to G.R.Case No.620/2020), whereby the application filed on behalf of the petitioner for cancellation of the bail bond of the O.P.No.2 was rejected, pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chaibasa.
2. Mr. Indrajit Sinha, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the complaint case has been filed being Complaint Case No.32 of 2019 by the petitioner alleging therein commission of offences under section 406 and 420 IPC, inter-alia, for the reason that accused dishonestly induced the petitioner to pay sum of Rs.10,00,000/- in discharge of the petitioner’s obligation under a land facilitation agreement and even after receipt of the same the accused did not perform his part as he had no intention to perform his obligations from the very beginning. He further submits that dispute in question has been referred to the mediation Centre at DLSA, Dhanbad and in the mediation both the parties have arrived at compromise and as per the terms and conditions of such settlement it has been submitted that Rs.8 lakh will be refunded by the O.P.No.2 and Rs.2 lakh has already been paid and the remaining Rs.6 lakh was required to be refunded in terms of the agreement in view of paragraph no.3 of the said settlement and submits that based on this settlement the learned court has granted anticipatory bail. He further submits that however apart from Rs.2 lakh further EMI as agreed between the parties have not been paid by the O.P.No.2 and for that non-compliance, the petitioner filed petition which was rejected by the learned court by order dated 19.03.2021. He submits that once the agreement has been entered into between the parties before the mediation centre it was expected to fulfill the terms and based on which the anticipatory bail has been granted. He relied in the case of Union Bank of India v. State of Jharkhand and Others, MANU/JH/1388/2011 (Cr.M.P.No.1285 of 2009), paragraph no.5 of the said judgment is quoted below:
“Having heard the learned counsel appearing rot he parties and on perusal of the order under which petitioner was granted anticipatory bail it does appear that statement was made that a settlement has arrived at in between the petitioner and the bank whereby schedule of payment has been given and in terms of the settlement a sum of Rs.25 lakhs has been deposited and that the petitioner will go on depositing the money and at the same time statement was made that another sale deed in palace of sale deed which was found to be tampered would be deposited as collateral security arid taking into account the aforesaid submissions the petitioner was granted anticipatory bail but from the submission advanced on behalf of the parties it does appears that the petitioner after passing of the order never deposited any amount nor the petitioner did file original copy of the sale deed as collateral security. That apart, the petitioner also did not honour his commitment made before this court during hearing of this application that the petitioner would pay a sum of Rs.25 lakhs in order to get the matter settlement initiated.”
3. Relying on this judgment he submits that in this case also the terms and the conditions has not been fulfilled that the concerned court has cancelled the bail.
4. Mr. Rohitashya Roy, the learned counsel appearing for the O.P.No.2 submits that the learned court has not allowed the anticipatory bail on the ground of settlement. He further submits that the question of fact of terms and condition has also been taken by the learned court and thereafter bail has been cancelled. He further submits that in the trial the evidences have already been completed and the matter is pending before the court for f
AI
Cancellation of anticipatory bail cannot be based solely on non-fulfillment of compromise terms, which are not recognized as valid grounds under the Criminal Procedure Code.
Bail cannot be cancelled solely for non-compliance with mediation terms; substantial grounds are required for cancellation.
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 ....
Anticipatory bail cannot be cancelled solely for non-compliance with mediation compromise terms like cheque dishonour, absent bail condition violation or liberty misuse; mediation communications conf....
Anticipatory bail cannot be cancelled solely for violation of mediation compromise terms, as such communications are confidential and inadmissible under Mediation Act, 2023; cancellation must follow ....
Bail once granted to an accused person cannot be cancelled unless he violates the condition of the bail or does any act, deed, or thing to impede a fair trial of the case concerned.
Cancellation of anticipatory bail requires substantial grounds; mere non-compliance with settlement terms does not justify cancellation without evidence of misconduct.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.