Bail cannot be cancelled solely for non-fulfillment of mediation compromise terms like maintenance or cohabitation; governed by CrPC Chapter XXXIII, not promises to court.

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 26.11.2019 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Jamshedpur in connection with C1-2352 of 2018, by which bail granted to the petitioner by learned Sessions Judge, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur in A.B.P. No. 729 of 2019 vide order dated 28.06.2019 has been cancelled.

3. The brief fact of the case is that bail granted to the petitioner has been cancelled only because the petitioner allegedly did not fulfill the conditions of the bail and breached the agreement made between the parties in Mediation Centre; as the accused husband is not maintaining the complainant nor he is residing with her.

4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was granted anticipatory bail vide order dated 28.06.2019 in A.B.P No. 729 of 2019 by the learned Sessions Judge, East Singhbhum at Jamshedpur on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- with two sureties of like amount each and one of the conditions shall be that the husband shall not commit breach of the condition of the agreement entered into between the parties in living with his wife with dignity.

5. Consequent upon grant of anticipatory bail,the petitioner furnished bail bond and released on bail. The opposite party No.2 filed a petition on 04.09.2019 contending therein that the petitioner has not abided by the conditions which he agreed at the time of hearing of bail and in the mediation centre.

6. The learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Jamshedpur considered that since the petitioner being the accused husband of the case, has not fulfilled the conditions of bail and breached the agreement as made between the parties at the Mediation Centre and the petitioner is not maintaining the complainant/O.P. No.2 nor he is residing with her and the agreement made between the parties that they will solemnize registered marriage before the Marriage Registrar, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur is also not fulfilled, therefore the bail granted to the petitioner was cancelled.

7. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner relying upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Shivnarayan Yadav vs. The State of Jharkhand and Another reported in 2026:JHHC:64 that in that case this Court relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Biman Chatterjee vs. Sanchita Chatterjee & Another reported in (2004) 3 SCC 388 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 basi