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.

JUDGMENT :

By the Court :- Heard the parties.

2. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with a prayer to quash the order dated 30.06.2017 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, Ramgarh in Criminal Misc. Case No.10 of 2016 whereby and where under the learned court below cancelled the anticipatory bail granted to the petitioner vide order dated 01.08.2016 in connection with A.B.P. No.240 of 2016 arising out of Complaint Case No.1955 of 2015 registered for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Ramgarh.

3. The brief facts of the case is that petitioner is the husband of the opposite party No.2. The opposite party No.2 filed Complaint Case No.1955 of 2015 in which cognizance was taken against the petitioner. The petitioner vide order dated 01.08.2016 in A.B.P. No.240 of 2016, was given the privileges of anticipatory bail with a direction to surrender before the trial court within ten days; with the condition that the petitioner will visit his in-laws’ house on the second Saturday in the month of August, 2016 and take Vidaai of his wife. The petitioner complied the order of anticipatory bail and went to the house of his in-laws’ and took Vidaai of his wife and till Rakshabandhan, both the petitioner and opposite party No.2 lived peacefully in the house of the petitioner and thereafter some quarrel took place and subsequently the petitioner did not agree to reside with the opposite party No.2. The opposite party No.2 filed Criminal Misc. Case No.10 of 2016 with a prayer to cancel the bail granted to the petitioner wherein the petitioner of this Cr.M.P. contended that it is the opposite party No.2 of this Cr.M.P. who is not ready and willing to reside with the petitioner unless and until the petitioner takes a separate accommodation to which the petitioner was not agreeable thefore, subsequently, the petitioner and opposite party No.2 could not reside together. The learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, considered that since the anticipatory bail was granted to the petitioner consequent upon the compromise but now the petitioner is refusing to obey the terms and conditions of the compromise, hence, the anticipatory bail granted to the petitioner be cancelled and accordingly cancelled the same.

4. Mr. Indrajit Sinha-learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no condition in the anticipatory bail granted to the petitioner that the petitioner has to live with the opposite party No.2 at any point before by second Saturday of the month of August, 2016. It is next submitted that the undisputed fact remains that the petitioner went to his in-laws’ house as per the terms of the order by which anticipatory bail was granted to him, took his wife and along with his wife, the petitioner went to the court. It is next submitted that it is not a case of even the opposite party No.2 that the petitioner has violated any of the condition upon which anticipatory bail has been granted to the petitioner. Mr. Sinha relies upon the order dated 01.04.2022 passed in Cr.M.P. No.2499 of 2021 in the case of Jyotshna Sharma @ Jyotsana Anand vs. The State of Jharkhand & Others passed by this Court wherein this Court relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Pritpal Singh Vs. State of Bihar reported in 2001 SCC OnLine SC 123 paragraphs-4 & 5 of which read as under:-

4. “The dispute raised in the case relates to eviction of the appellant who is the tenant from the premises of which the respondent is the owner. Previously, there was a compromise between the parties in which it was agreed inter alia that the appellant will pay certain amount to the respondent and vacate the premises by the time stipulated. On the allegation that the appellant has failed to comply with the terms of the compromise by not vacating the prem