Bail cannot be cancelled solely for non-compliance with mediation terms; substantial grounds are required for cancellation.

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, 1973 with the prayer to quash the order dated 19.01.2023 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-IV-cum-Special Judge (FTC) (CAW), Jamshedpur in Criminal Misc. Case No.31 of 2022 arising out of Kadma P.S. Case No.187 of 2020 corresponding to G.R. Case No.898 of 2021 whereby and where under the learned Additional Sessions Judge-VII cum-Special Judge (FTC) (CAW), Jamshedpur has cancelled the anticipatory bail granted to the petitioner vide order dated 02.03.2021 passed in A.B.P. No.225 of 2021.

3. The brief facts of the case is that the petitioner was granted the privileges of anticipatory bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge- VII, Jamshedpur vide order dated 02.03.2021 in A.B.P. No.225 of 2021 subject to the condition that the petitioner will not violate the terms and conditions agreed upon in the mediation settlement agreement, failing which the informant shall have the liberty to move the competent authority for cancellation of the bail. One of the conditions imposed was that the petitioner has to pay Rs.30,000/- per month towards the maintenance of the second party as well as the maintenance of both of their son and daughter. Alleging that the petitioner has violated the said condition of payment of Rs.30,000/- per month on or before the 15th day of every English Calendar month and as the petitioner did not pay the said amount after June, 2021, thus, the informant filed a petition with the prayer for cancellation of the anticipatory bail of the petitioner and the same has been cancelled by the impugned order.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment of this Court in the case ofDiksha Kumari @ Disksha Kumari vs. The State of Jharkhand & Another reported in2024:JHHC:16516 and submits that therein 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 in2001 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 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 restored. The appeal is allowed.” (Emphasis supplied)

and submits that therein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of