(2026:JHHC:20327) 1 Cr.M.P. No.1990 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 1990 of 2026 Madhusudan Tripathi, aged about 65 years, son of late Shyam Bihari Tripathi, resident of New Nagra Toli, Tripathi Hostel, P.O. & P.S.- Lalpur, Dist.-Ranchi .... Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand …. Opp. Party P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ….. For the Petitioner : Mr. Pratik Sen, Advocate For the State : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Addl. P.P. ….. By the Court:- 1. Heard the parties. 2. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of B.N.S.S., 2023 with the prayer to quash the order dated 25.04.2024 passed by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-II, Ranchi in connection with Criminal Misc. No. 228 of 2023 whereby and where under, regular bail of the petitioner in connection with Lalpur P.S. Case No. 210 of 2015, corresponding to G.R. No. 4896 of 2015 has been cancelled. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner files the supplementary affidavit. Keep the same in the record. 4. The brief fact of the case is that the petitioner was granted bail vide order dated 26.11.2015 in B.P. No. 1860 of 2015 and liberty was given in the bail application that if any cruelty and ill (2026:JHHC:20327) 2 Cr.M.P. No.1990 of 2026 treatment is meted out with the victim, she will have liberty to file a petition for cancellation of bail of the petitioner in the court concerned. 5. The informant-wife of the petitioner filed a petition for cancellation of the bail granted to the petitioner. The learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-II, Ranchi vide the impugned order dated 25.04.2024 considered that the petitioner herein entered into a settlement with the victim only to obtain bail from the Court and the petitioner was enlarged on bail in the light of the said settlement hence, onus was upon the petitioner herein to show his efforts taken for the timely compliance of terms and conditions of the settlement and as the petitioner failed to comply with the terms and condition of the settlement which was one of the consideration for granting him bail, he cancelled the bail granted to the petitioner. 6. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner by relying upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Manoj Kumar Mandal vs. The State of Jharkhand & Anr. reported in 2025:JHHC:34515 that in that case, this Court relied 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 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 (2026:JHHC:20327) 3 Cr.M.P. No.1990 of 2026 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) and submits that therein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has laid down the law that the ground of cancellation of bail that the terms of compromise has not been complied with is not tenable. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner next submits that in that case, this Court also referred to its own judgment in the case of Jyotshna Sharma @ Jyotsana Anand vs. The State of Jharkhand & Others vide order dated 01.04.2022 passed in Cr.M.P. No.2499 of 2021, wherein this Court has enumerated the grounds illustratively though not exhaustively; where bail granted to an accused can be cancelled. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner next relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Ajay Kumar vs. The State of Jharkhand & Anr. reported in 2026:JHHC:4897 and submits that in that case, this Court relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble (2026:JHHC:20327) 4 Cr.M.P. No.1990 of 2026 Supreme Court of India in the case of Biman Chatterjee vs. Sanchita Chatterjee & Anr. reported in AIR 2004 SC 1699, wherein, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has observed that non-fulfillment of the terms of the compromise cannot be the basis for granting or cancelling a bail. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is no allegation against the petitioner of committing any of the act or omission which will make him liable for cancellation of his bail as enumerated in the case of Jyotshna Sharma @ Jyotsana Anand vs. The State of Jharkhand & Others (supra) and as the bail has been cancelled solely on the ground of non-fulfillment of the terms and condition of the compromise; hence, it is submitted that the prayer as prayed for by the petitioner in this criminal miscellaneous petition be allowed. 9. Learned Addl. P.P. on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer of the petitioner made in this criminal miscellaneous petition and submits that this criminal miscellaneous petition being without any merit be dismissed. 10. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going through the materials available in the record, this Court is of the considered view that the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-II, Ranchi has cancelled the bail granted to the petitioner only on the ground that he failed to comply with the terms and condition of the settlement. (2026:JHHC:20327) 5 Cr.M.P. No.1990 of 2026 11. It is a settled principle of law as has already been indicated above in the foregoing paragraphs of this Judgment that since grant of bail under the Code of Criminal Procedure is governed by the provision of Chapter-XXIII of the Code and the provision therein does not contemplate either granting of bail on the basis of assurance of a compromise or cancellation of bail for violation of the terms of compromise; therefore this Court has no hesitation in holding that the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-II, Ranchi has committed a grave illegality by cancelling the bail granted to the petitioner on the sole ground that the petitioner did not honour the terms and condition of the settlement. Thus, the impugned order is not sustainable in law. 12. Accordingly, impugned order dated 25.04.2024 passed by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-II, Ranchi in connection with Criminal Misc. No. 228 of 2023 where under, regular bail of the petitioner has been cancelled in connection with Lalpur P.S. Case No. 210 of 2015, corresponding to G.R. No. 4896 of 2015 is quashed and set aside and the bail bond of the petitioner furnished earlier in the trial court in the said Lalpur P.S. Case No. 210 of 2015 is restored. 13. In the result, this criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent only. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 9th July, 2026 AFR/Gunjan/- Uploaded on 10/07/2026