Cancellation of bail based solely on non-compliance with mediation terms is untenable; mediation communications are confidential and cannot affect bail validity.

JUDGMENT :

ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.

I.A. No.4411 of 2025 and I.A. No.5073 of 2025
Heard the parties.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner does not press I.A. No.4411 of 2025 and I.A. No.5073 of 2025.
Accordingly, I.A. No.4411 of 2025 and I.A. No.5073 of 2025 stand rejected as not pressed.

Cr.M.P. No.629 of 2025

This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 with a prayer to quash the order dated 27.01.2024 passed by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-XV, Ranchi in Criminal Miscellaneous Case No.78 of 2023 arising out of A.B.P. No.1341 of 2021 whereby and where under the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-XV, Ranchi has cancelled the bail granted to the petitioner in connection with Namkum P.S. Case No.29 of 2021 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 420 , 406, 468, 471, 34 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE .

2. The brief facts of the case is that the petitioner is an accused person of the said Namkum P.S. Case No.29 of 2021 and he was granted the privileges of anticipatory bail vide order dated 06.07.2022 in A.B.P. No.1341 of 2021 on the basis of successful mediation and one of the condition of the mediation being that the petitioner will pay Rs.35,00,000/- in installments of Rs.5,00,000/- per month starting from May, 2022 and the entire installment amount was to be completed by October, 2022. There were several undertakings given in the Criminal Miscellaneous Case No.78 of 2023 which was filed by the opposite party No.1/informant for cancellation of the bail and the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that by now, the petitioner has already paid Rs.25,00,000/- which fact is also acknowledged by the learned counsel for the opposite party No.1.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Dharmendra Kumar Sao @ Dharmendra Kumar @ Dharmendra Saw vs. The State of Jharkhand & Another passed in Cr.M.P. No.1429 of 2021 dated 16th February, 2024 and submits that this Court considering the principle of law settled by 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 and 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 premises in question within the time stipulated, the petition for cancellation of bail was filed. It is stated by learned counsel for the appellant that neither was any averment made in the petition about misuse of liberty granted to the appellant nor was any difficulty alleged to have been faced by the prosecution in the case on the ground of the appellant being at large.

5. The Magistrate cancelled the bail granted to the appellant solely on the ground that the terms of the compromise had not been complied with. To say the least, the ground on which the petition for cancellation of bail was made and was granted is wholly untenable. It is our view that the order if allowed to stand will result in abuse of the process of court. The High Court clearly erred in maintaining the order. Therefore, the order passed by the Magistrate cancelling the bail and the order of the High Court confirming the said order are set aside. The bail order is r