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.

JUDGMENT :

ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.

1. Heard the parties.

2. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with a prayer for quashing the order dated 05.09.2022 passed in Cr. Misc. Case No. 57 of 2021 by which the learned Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi has cancelled the anticipatory bail granted to the petitioner vide A.B.P. No. 2129 of 2019 on the sole ground that the petitioner had failed to keep up his promise to repay Rs.8,00,000/- in terms of the settlement arrived at between the parties at the Mediation Center, Ranchi.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Biman Chatterjee vs. Sachita Chatterjee and Another, (2004) 3 SCC 388, paragraph no. 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)

And submits that the court below could not have cancelled the anticipatory bail solely on the ground that the petitioner has failed to keep up his promise to make payment of Rs.8,00,000/-.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner next relied upon the judgment of coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Amr Chouhan @ Amar Singh Chouhan vs. State of Jharkhand and Another, 2016 SCC Online Jhar 1018 dated 04.03.2016 whereby and where under, the coordinate Bench relying upon the said judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Biman Chatterjee vs. Sachita Chatterjee and Another (supra) has also opined that non-fulfillment of terms of compromise cannot be the basis of cancelling the bail. Hence, it is submitted that the order dated 05.09.2022 passed in Cr. Misc. Case No. 57 of 2021 be quashed and set aside.

5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 on the other hand opposes the prayer for quashing the order dated 05.09.2022 passed in Cr. Misc. Case No. 57 of 2021 and submits that the bail has been cancelled on merits and condition of repayment was part of the condition of bail hence, the same having been violated by the petitioner, the learned Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi has rightly cancelled the anticipatory bail granted to the petitioner. Hence, it is submitted that this criminal miscellaneous petition being without any merit be dismissed.

6. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going throu