JUDGMENT :

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) :

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 13.04.2023 passed in Misc. Criminal Application No.337 of 2023 by which the learned Sessions Judge, Chatra has cancelled the bail granted to the petitioner vide order dated 15.02.2023 in B.P. No.84 of 2023.

3. Perusal of the record reveals that the petitioner was directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned court below and no other condition was imposed in the said bail order. It was alleged by the wife of the petitioner who was the informant of Chatra Mahila P.S. Case No.30 of 2022 in connection with which case the petitioner was granted bail by the said order, filed an application for cancellation of bail on the ground that the petitioner has failed to fulfill the condition in mediation and on that sole ground, the petition for cancellation of the bail was allowed by the learned Sessions Judge and the learned Sessions Judge, Chatra cancelled the bail granted to the petitioner.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Biman Chatterjee vs. Sanchita Chatterjee & Another reported in AIR 2004 SC 1699 paragraph-7 of which reads as under:-

“7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that the High Court was not justified in cancelling the bail on the ground that the appellant had violated the terms of the compromise. Though in the original order granting bail there is a reference to an agreement of the parties to have a talk of compromise through the media of well-wishers, there is no submission made to the court that there will be a compromise or that the appellant would take back his wife. Be that as it may, in our opinion, the courts below could not have cancelled the bail solely on the ground that the appellant had failed to keep up his promise made to the court. Here we hasten to observe, first of all from the material on record, we do not find that there was any compromise arrived at between the parties at all, hence, question of fulfilling the terms of such compromise does not arise. That apart, non-fulfilment of the terms of the compromise cannot be the basis of granting or cancelling a bail. The grant of bail under the Criminal Procedure Code is governed by the provision of Chapter XXXIII of the Code and the provision therein does not contemplate either granting of a bail on the basis of an assurance of a compromise or cancellation of a bail for violation of the terms of such compromise. What the court has to bear in mind while granting bail is what is provided for in Section 437 of the said Code. In our opinion, having granted the bail under the said provision of law, it is not open to the trial court or the High Court to cancel the same on a ground alien to the grounds mentioned for cancellation of bail in the said provision of law.” (Emphasis supplied)

Submits that it is a settled principle of law that bail once granted cannot be cancelled on the ground that the accused has violated the terms of compromise. It is further submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are completely false and concocted. Learned counsel for the petitioner further relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Dolat Ram & Others vs. State of Haryana reported in (1995) 1 SCC 349 and submits that therein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has held that very