Back
2026 Supreme(Jhk) 409
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.
Shivnarayan Yadav son of Subodh Yadav – Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand – Respondent
Cr.M.P. No.886 of 2024
Decided on : 05-01-2026
Important Points
Subject
Criminal Law - Bail Cancellation
Act Referred
Headnote
(B) Bail - Cancellation - Non-fulfilment of terms of compromise or promise to make payment not basis for cancellation - Grant or cancellation governed by Chapter XXXIII of Code of Criminal Procedure, not on alien grounds like violation of extra-judicial assurances. (Paras 4,5,7)
Facts of the case:
Petitioner granted anticipatory bail privileges, furnished bail bond after executing agreement with opposite party. Lower court cancelled bail vide impugned order solely on ground of violation of that agreement terms arrived at in mediation. Petition filed under Section 482 to quash cancellation order.
Findings of Court:
Impugned order quashed and set aside; anticipatory bail restored to petitioner.
Issues: Whether anticipatory bail can be cancelled solely for non-compliance with terms of mediation compromise or agreement.
Ratio Decidendi: Settled law prohibits cancellation of bail solely for non-fulfilment of compromise terms; mediation communications confidential under Section 22 of Mediation Act prohibiting reliance thereon in court; cancellation must align with CrPC provisions, not extraneous violations.
Result: Petition allowed.
For the Appellant :Mr. Sudhanshu Shekhar, Advocate Mr. Prakash Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Addl.P.P. Mr. Avilash Kumar, Advocate Mr. Sahil, Advocate
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petition challenges anticipatory bail cancellation order. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. bail cannot be cancelled solely for compromise non-fulfilment. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. bail conditions violation justifies cancellation. (Para 6) |
| 4. non-compliance with mediation terms not valid cancellation ground. (Para 7 , 8) |
| 5. mediation act prohibits using confidential communications as evidence. (Para 9) |
| 6. cancellation order quashed; bail restored. (Para 10 , 11 , 12) |
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 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with the prayer to quash the order dated 22.06.2023 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous Case No. 48 of 2023 arising out of Argora P.S. Case No. 287 of 2021 of the court of the learned Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi.
3. The brief fact of the case is that the petitioner was given the privileges of anticipatory bail vide the order dated 28.06.2022 passed in A.B.P. No. 1259 of 2022 in connection with Argora P.S. Case No. 287 of 2021. Vide the impugned order dated 22.06.2023 in Criminal Miscellaneous Case No. 48 of 2023, the learned Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi has considered that the petitioner herein has violated the agreement executed between him and the opposite party No.2 herein and on the sole ground of the same, has cancelled the anticipatory bail granted to the petitioner herein who, consequent upon being granted the anticipatory bail in A.B.P. No. 1259 of 2022, furnished the bail bond in the court of the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Ranchi.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Tanya Basu @ Bose vs. The State of Jharkhand reported in 2023 0 Supreme (Jhk) 1481 and submits that in the facts of 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 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 his promise to make the payment.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner next submits that in that case, this Court also r
