[ 2025:JHHC:24903] 1 Cr.M.P. No. 1547 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 1547 of 2024 Avinash Kumar Pandey, Aged about 35 years, s/o Dinesh Chandra Pandey, R/o Sundar Vihar, Tiril Road, Kokar, P.O.Bariatu, P.S.-Sadar,Dist.Ranchi, Jharkhand- 834009. ...... Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Navin Kumar Malhotra, S/o Kripal Singh Malhotra, aged about 41 years, R/o Kali Mandir Road, Hantikhan, Doranda, Near Kali Mandir, P.O. &P.S.- Doranda, Dist.- Ranchi, Jharkhand. ….. Opposite Parties For the Petitioner : Mr. Akash Kr. Lal, Adv. For the State : Mr. Manoj Kr. Mishra, Addl. PP For the opp. party no.2 : Ms. P. Priyadarshni ,Adv. 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 CrPC with a prayer for quashing and setting aside the order dated 05.12.2023 passed by learned Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi in Criminal Miscellaneous Application no. 110 of 2023 by which , learned Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi has cancelled the bail granted to the petitioner in B.P. No. 1622 of 2022 vide order dated 28.09.2022 consequent the O.P. no. 2 not paying money to the informant in terms of the agreement entered into between the parties in the mediation center and as there is specific allegation against petitioner about hatching conspiracy and taking money of the informant. 3. Relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Pritpal Singh vs. State of Bihar reported in 2001 SCC OnLine SC 123, para 4 and 5 of which reads as under – [ 2025:JHHC:24903] 2 Cr.M.P. No. 1547 of 2024 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) learned counsel for the petitioner submits that therein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has reiterated the settled principle of law that on the allegation that the accused has failed to comply with the terms of compromise, the cancellation of bail cannot be done. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner next relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Biman Chatterjee vs. Sanchita Chatterjee and Another reported in (2004) 3 SCC 388 wherein in para 7, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has reiterated that the courts below could not have cancelled the bail solely on the ground that the accused person failed to keep up his promise made to the court. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner next relies upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Ajay Kumar @ Ajay Gope vs. The State of Jharkhand and Another dated 16.06.2023 passed in CrMP no. 2116 of 2018 and submits that this Court, therein, this Court referred to the grounds illustratively though not exhaustively enumerated, where bail granted to an accused can be cancelled, as has been reiterated by this Court in the case of Jyotsna Sharma @ Jyotsna Anand vs. Sate of Jharkhand and [ 2025:JHHC:24903] 3 Cr.M.P. No. 1547 of 2024 Others dated 01.04.2022 passed in CrMP No. 2499 of 2021, which are as follows- (i) by indulging in similar criminal activity, (ii) interfering with the course of investigation, (iii) attempted to tamper with evidence or witnesses (iv) threaten witnesses or indulges in similar activities which would hamper smooth investigation, (v) there is likelihood of their fleeing to another country, (vi) attempted to make themselves scarce by going underground or becoming unavailable to the investigating agency, (vii) attempted to place themselves beyond the reach of his surety, etc. and submits that there is neither any allegation against the petitioner of violating any terms and conditions of the bail nor the petitioner has committed any act, deed or thing which can even remotely be referred to the grounds for which the bail granted to an accused can be cancelled. Hence, it is submitted that the learned Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi has committed gross illegality by cancelling the bail granted to the petitioner even without the petitioner having committed any of such violation, hence, it is submitted that the prayer as made in this criminal miscellaneous petition be allowed. 6. Learned Addl. PP and learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2 vehemently oppose the prayer of the petitioner and submits that since the petitioner has violated the compromise entered into between the parties consequent upon which the bail was granted to the petitioner, hence there is no illegality in the order dated 05.12.2023 passed by learned Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi in Criminal Miscellaneous Application no. 110 of 2023 and submits that this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition being without any merit, be dismissed. 7. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through materials available in the record, it is pertinent to refer to Section 22 of the Mediation Act, 2023 which reads as under – [ 2025:JHHC:24903] 4 Cr.M.P. No. 1547 of 2024 22. Confidentiality.—(1) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the mediator, mediation service provider, the parties and participants in the mediation shall keep confidential all the following matters relating to the mediation proceedings, namely— (i) acknowledgements, opinions, suggestions, promises, proposals, apologies and admissions made during the mediation; (ii) acceptance of, or willingness to, accept proposals made or exchanged in the mediation; (iii) documents prepared solely for the conduct of mediation or in relation thereto; (iv) any other mediation communication. (2) No audio or video recording of the mediation proceedings shall be made or maintained by the parties or the participants including the mediator and mediation service provider, whether conducted in person or online to ensure confidentiality of the conduct of mediation proceedings. (3) No party to the mediation shall in any proceeding before a court or tribunal including arbitral tribunal, rely on or introduce as evidence any information or communication set forth in clauses (i) to (iv) of sub- section (1), including any information in electronic form, or verbal communication and the court or tribunal including arbitral tribunal shall not take cognizance of such information or evidence. (4) The provisions of this section shall not prevent the mediator from compiling or disclosing general information concerning matters that have been subject of mediation, for research, reporting or training purposes, if the information does not expressly or indirectly identify a party or participants or the specific disputes in the mediation. Explanation.—For the removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified that nothing contained in this section shall apply to the mediated settlement agreement where its disclosure is necessary for the purpose of registration, enforcement and challenge. (Emphasis supplied) 8. The plain reading of Section 22 (3) of the Mediation Act, 2023 make it abundantly clear that no party to the mediation shall in any proceeding before inter alia a court rely on or introduce as evidence any information or communication set forth in clauses (i) to (iv) of Section 22 (1), and the court shall not take cognizance of such information or evidence. 9. Now Coming to the facts of the case, learned Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi has cancelled the bail granted to the petitioner on the sole ground that he has not refunded Rs. 10,00,000/- as per the agreement entered into between the parties at the Mediation Centre. As has categorically been held by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Pritpal Singh vs. State of Bihar (supra), the same is not a ground to cancel the bail granted to the petitioner, more so, when the same was agreed in a mediation and there is no allegation against the petitioner of [ 2025:JHHC:24903] 5 Cr.M.P. No. 1547 of 2024 having committed any act, deed or thing which could be a ground for cancelation of the bail already granted to him, as enumerated by this Court in its order in the case of Jyotsna Sharma @ Jyotsna Anand vs. Sate of Jharkhand and Others (supra). 10. Under such circumstances, this Court has no hesitation in holding that learned Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi has committed gross illegality by cancelling the bail granted to the petitioner only because he has failed to pay the amount as agreed upon by him during a mediation proceeding. Hence, the order dated 05.12.2023 passed by learned Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi in Criminal Miscellaneous Application no. 110 of 2023 being a perverse one, is not sustainable in law and continuation of the same will amount to abuse of process of law. 11. So far as the observation of the Judicial Commissioner Ranchi that there is allegation against the petitioner that the petitioner has hatched a conspiracy and took money of the informant the same may be the subject matter of the trial but certainly, the same is not a ground for cancellation of the bail. 12. Accordingly, order dated 05.12.2023 passed by learned Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi in Criminal Miscellaneous Application no. 110 of 2023 is quashed and set aside and the bail granted to the petitioner in terms of the order dated 28.09.2022 passed in B.P. No. 1622 of 2022 by learned Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi is restored. 13. In the result, this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is allowed and in view of the disposal of this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, the I.A. No. 9841 of 2025 is also disposed of being infructuous. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated, the 11th August, 2025 Smita /AFR