IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI ------

1. Anita Kumari @ Anita Sharma, aged about 45 years, W/o Someshwar Kr. Sharma.

2. Someshwar Kr. Sharma, aged about 51 years, S/o Harinandan Sharma.

Both R/o Qr. No. TA/5B, D-Type, Chandrapura, P.O. and P.S.- Chandrapura, District- Bokaro.

3. Manoj Dome, aged about 54 years, S/o Ganesh Dome, R/o Qr. No. TA/5-20, Adi Puja Mandap, Rangamati Paschmami, Chandrapura, P.O. and P.S.- Chandrapura, District- Bokaro … … Petitioner Versus

1. The State of Jharkhand.

2. Deepak Kumar, S/o Late Ranvijay Singh, R/o Jharnadih QNO GYP-58 P.O. and P.S.- Chandrapura, District-

Bokaro … … Opp. Parties ------

For the Petitioner : Mr. Satish Kumar, Advocate For the State : Ms. Ruby Pandey, Addl.P.P.

For the O.P. No. 2 : Mr. R.S. Mazumdar, Sr. Advocate : Ms. Jasvindar Mazumdar, Advocate ------

P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY By the Court:- 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 16.10.2023 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge IV, Bokaro in Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 88 of 2023 arising out of Chandrapura P.S. Case No. 22 of 2023 corresponding to G.R No. 240 of 2023 by which the learned Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Bokaro has cancelled the anticipatory bail granted to the petitioners vide order dated 08.06.2023 for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420/120B/504/506 of the I.P.C.

3. The brief fact of this case is that the petitioner nos. 1 and 2 were given the privileges of anticipatory bail vide order dated 08.06.2023 passed in A.B.P. No. 567 of 2023 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-IV-Cum-Special Judge (Crime Against Women), Bokaro and it was ordered that on furnishing bail of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each, they will be admitted to bail.

4. Petitioner no. 3 was given the privileges of anticipatory bail by the same Court on the same date but in A.B.P. No. 679 of 2023 with the same terms and conditions.

5. The informant filed Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 88 of 2023 with a prayer to cancel the anticipatory bail granted to the petitioners. The learned Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Bokaro considered that anticipatory bail was granted to the petitioners on the basis of settlement and mediation report furnished by the Mediation Center, Bokaro dated 03.06.2023, but the terms and conditions of payment of the amount was not complied with and considering the same, the bail granted to the petitioners have been cancelled.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners relying upon the judgement of this Court in the case of Jyotshna Sharma @ Jyotsana Anand v. The State of Jharkhand & Others reported in 2022: JHHC:12333, submits that in that case, this Court relied upon the Judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Pritpal Singh Vs. State of Bihar reported in 2001 SCC OnLine SC123, paragraph- 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