(2025:JHHC:36730) 1 Cr. M. P. No. 4038 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. M. P. No. 4038 of 2023 ------ 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 … … Petitioners 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 (2025:JHHC:36730) 2 Cr. M. P. No. 4038 of 2023 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 (2025:JHHC:36730) 3 Cr. M. P. No. 4038 of 2023 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 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) (2025:JHHC:36730) 4 Cr. M. P. No. 4038 of 2023 and submits that therein, it has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that cancellation of bail only on the ground that the terms of the compromise had not been complied with, is wholly untenable. In that case, this Court also relied upon the judgement of this Court in the case of Akhileshwar Prasad Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Another in Cr.M.P. No. 3851 of 2019 wherein this Court reiterated the settled principle of law that bail cannot be cancelled on the ground that the accused has not vacated the tenanted premises in terms of the compromise. 7. This Court also reiterated the grounds for cancellation of bail illustratively and though not exhaustively which reads as under- (I) Interference or attempt to interfere with the due course of administration of justice or; (II) evasion or attempt to evade the due course of justice or; (III) abuse of the concession granted to the accused in any manner. (IV) the satisfaction of the court, on the basis of material placed on the record of the possibility of the accused absconding is yet another reason justifying the cancellation of bail. (2025:JHHC:36730) 5 Cr. M. P. No. 4038 of 2023 Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as prayed for by the petitioners in this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition be allowed. 8. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and the learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2, on the other hand vehemently oppose the prayer of the petitioners made in this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition and submit that in para-14 of this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, the petitioners have undertaken to return the remaining amount of Rs.4,70,000/-. Hence, it is submitted that this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, being without any merit, be dismissed. 9. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going through the materials available in the records, it is pertinent to mention here that there is neither any allegation against the petitioners of violation of any terms and conditions of the bail nor the petitioners have committed any act or omission which can even be referred to the grounds for which bail granted to an accused can be cancelled. 10. It is settled principle of law that in view of the Section 22 of the Mediation Act, 2023 which reads as under :- “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; (2025:JHHC:36730) 6 Cr. M. P. No. 4038 of 2023 (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.”” prohibits the court from taking note of, rely on or introduce as evidence any information or communication regarding acceptance of, or willingness to, accept proposals made or exchanged in the mediation. There is no condition imposed in the anticipatory bail order as a condition for grant of bail. 11. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the learned Additional Sessions Judge-IV Bokaro has committed a grave illegality while cancelling the bail granted to the petitioners vide the order dated 16.10.2023 passed by the learned (2025:JHHC:36730) 7 Cr. M. P. No. 4038 of 2023 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, hence the same is not sustainable in law and the same is liable to be quashed and set aside against the petitioners. 12. Accordingly, 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, is quashed and set aside qua the petitioners. 13. Accordingly, the bail granted to the petitioner nos. 1 and 2 in ABP No. 567 of 2023 and petitioner no. 3 in ABP No. 679 of 2023 both vide order dated 08.06.2023, is restored. 14. In the result, this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is allowed. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 08th December, 2025 AFR/ Simran Uploaded on:- 15.12.2025.