( 2026:JHHC:19565 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 1246 of 2026 ------ Rajesh Kumar, aged about 52 years, S/o Late Ram Shankar Prasad Singh, R/o Cooperative Colony, Dipugarha, Near Gol Chakkar, P.O. –Korrah, P.S. –Korrah, Hazaribagh, District – Hazaribagh. .... .... …. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Deepak Singh, aged about 36 years, S/o Suresh Singh, R/o 5, Sai Niwas, Behind Vastu Vihar, Markhan Mahto Hospital Street, near Markhan Mahto B. Ed College, Furatoli, BIT More, Kedal, P.O. –Neori Vikas Vidyalaya, P.S. –BIT Mesra (O.P.), District –Ranchi. .... .... .... Opp. Parties ------ CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Sidhant Sinha, Advocate : Mr. Avishek Prasad, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Shweta Singh, Addl. P.P. For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Kumar Rishab Anand, Advocate ------ Order No.03 Dated- 03.07.2026 Heard the parties. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed under section 483(3) of the BNSS, 2023 by the petitioner with the prayer to cancel the bail granted to the opposite party no.2 in terms of the order dated 03.12.2025 in B.A. No. 6305 of 2025 in connection with Korrah P.S. Case No. 116 of 2024. The brief fact of the case is that the opposite party no.2 of the instant criminal miscellaneous petition was first given provisional bail in connection with the said case. Vide order dated 03.12.2025, passed in the said B.A. No. 6305 of 2025, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner in the said B.A. No. 6305 of 2025 handed over two pieces of cheques worth Rs.3,00,000/- and Rs.5,00,000/- to the learned counsel for the petitioner herein- who was the opposite party no.2 in the said bail application and consequent upon that the provisional granted to the opposite party no.2 herein was confirmed. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the confirmation of bail was on the submission that the dispute between the parties has been settled. The cheque for Rs.5,00,000/- has been dishonoured. The dishonour of the cheque constitutes the fresh offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as prayed for by the petitioner in this criminal miscellaneous petition be allowed. The learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer to cancel the bail granted to the petitioner and submits that admittedly by the petitioner for dishonour of a cheque, a fresh case could have been instituted but admittedly by the petitioner no demand notice was ever given nor any case has been instituted. It is further submitted that there is no allegation against the petitioner of violating any condition of bail. Hence, it is submitted that as the opposite party no.2 is undisputedly cooperating with the trial of the case, the bail granted to him ought not to be cancelled. Having heard the rival submissions made at the bar and after going through the materials in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that it is a settled principle of law that bail once granted to an accused person cannot be cancelled for failure on the part of the accused person to comply the terms of compromise, as has been reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Pritpal Singh Vs. State of Bihar reported in 2001 SCC OnLine SC 123 paragraphs -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) This Court vide its order dated 01.04.2022 passed in Cr.M.P. No.2499 of 2021 in the case of Jyotshna Sharma @ Jyotsana Anand vs. The State of Jharkhand & Others, has enumerated the following grounds illustratively though not exhaustively; where bail granted to an accused can be cancelled:- (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. Now coming to the facts of the case, the only allegation against the opposite party no. 2 is that a cheque which he issued in favour of the petitioner has been dishonoured. No notice of demand as required under the provision of 138 of the N.I. Act is there in the record. There is no material to suggest that any case has been instituted against the opposite party no.2 in respect of dishonour of the cheque. There is no allegation that the opposite party no.2 has committed any of the acts or omission as mentioned in the foregoing paragraphs of this order for which bail once granted can be cancelled. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case where the bail granted to the petitioner can be cancelled. Accordingly, this criminal miscellaneous petition being without any merit is dismissed. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) 03.07.2026 AFR- Sonu-