JUDGMENT : ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J. 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, 1973 with the prayer to quash the order dated 26.11.2019 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Jamshedpur in connection with C1-2352 of 2018, by which bail granted to the petitioner by learned Sessions Judge, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur in A.B.P. No. 729 of 2019 vide order dated 28.06.2019 has been cancelled. 3. The brief fact of the case is that bail granted to the petitioner has been cancelled only because the petitioner allegedly did not fulfill the conditions of the bail and breached the agreement made between the parties in Mediation Centre; as the accused husband is not maintaining the complainant nor he is residing with her. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was granted anticipatory bail vide order dated 28.06.2019 in A.B.P No. 729 of 2019 by the learned Sessions Judge, East Singhbhum at Jamshedpur on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- with two sureties of like amount each and one of the conditions shall be that the husband shall not commit breach of the condition of the agreement entered into between the parties in living with his wife with dignity. 5. Consequent upon grant of anticipatory bail,the petitioner furnished bail bond and released on bail. The opposite party No.2 filed a petition on 04.09.2019 contending therein that the petitioner has not abided by the conditions which he agreed at the time of hearing of bail and in the mediation centre. 6. The learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Jamshedpur considered that since the petitioner being the accused husband of the case, has not fulfilled the conditions of bail and breached the agreement as made between the parties at the Mediation Centre and the petitioner is not maintaining the complainant/O.P. No.2 nor he is residing with her and the agreement made between the parties that they will solemnize registered marriage before the Marriage Registrar, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur is also not fulfilled, therefore the bail granted to the petitioner was cancelled. 7. 7. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner relying upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Shivnarayan Yadav vs. The State of Jharkhand and Another reported in 2026:JHHC:64 that in that case this Court relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Biman Chatterjee vs. Sanchita Chatterjee & Another reported in (2004) 3 SCC 388 paragraph 7 of which reads as under: “7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that the High Court was not justified in cancelling the bail on the ground that the appellant had violated the terms of the compromise. Though in the original order granting bail there is a reference to an agreement of the parties to have a talk of compromise through the media of well-wishers, there is no submission made to the court that there will be a compromise or that the appellant would take back his wife. Be that as it may, in our opinion, the courts below could not have cancelled the bail solely on the ground that the appellant had failed to keep up his promise made to the court. Here we hasten to observe, first of all from the material on record, we do not find that there was any compromise arrived at between the parties at all, hence, question of fulfilling the terms of such compromise does not arise. That apart, non-fulfilment of the terms of the compromise cannot be the basis of granting or cancelling a bail. The grant of bail under the Criminal Procedure Code is governed by the provision of Chapter XXXIII of the Code and the provision therein does not contemplate either granting of a bail on the basis of an assurance of a compromise or cancellation of a bail for violation of the terms of such compromise. What the court has to bear in mind while granting bail is what is provided for in Section 437 of the said Code. What the court has to bear in mind while granting bail is what is provided for in Section 437 of the said Code. In our opinion, having granted the bail under the said provision of law, it is not open to the trial court or the High Court to cancel the same on a ground alien to the grounds mentioned for cancellation of bail in the said provision of law.” (Emphasis supplied) and submits that the courts below could not have cancelled the anticipatory bail solely on the ground that the petitioner has failed to keep his promise. 8. It is then submitted that in that case this Court also 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, para 4 and 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. 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) therein the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has reiterated the settled principle of law that solely on the ground that the terms of the compromise had not been complied with, bail granted to the accused person cannot be cancelled. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as prayed for in this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, be allowed. 9. The learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the State and the learned counsel for the O.P. No.2 on the other hand do not oppose the prayer of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the O.P. No.2 submits that a counter affidavit has been filed by the opposite party no.2-wife in which she has not opposed the prayer of the petitioner and further submits that she wants to resolve the disputes with her husband; as she cannot take pains of seeing her husband go to jail, hence she does not oppose the prayer made by the petitioner in the instant Cr.M.P for setting aside the impugned order dated 26.11.2019 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Jamshedpur in connection with C1 Case No. 2352 of 2018. 10. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going through the materials available in the record, it is needless to mention here that it is a settled principle of law that solely on the ground that the terms of the compromise or any promise made by accused was not complied with, is not by itself a ground to cancel the bail once granted to the accused person. 11. Now coming to the facts of the case the sole ground upon which the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Jamshedpur has cancelled the bail granted to the petitioner is that the petitioner violated the conditions of the agreement entered into between the parties. 12. 11. Now coming to the facts of the case the sole ground upon which the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Jamshedpur has cancelled the bail granted to the petitioner is that the petitioner violated the conditions of the agreement entered into between the parties. 12. Under such circumstances, this Court has no hesitation in holding that in view of the settled principle of law, the learned Judicial Magistrate 1stClass, East Singhbhum at Jamshedpur has committed a grave illegality in cancelling the anticipatory bail granted to the petitioner; more so when the said order was passed by a superior court. Therefore, the order dated 26.11.2019 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Jamshedpur passed in C1 case no.- 2352 of 2018 is not sustainable in law and the same be quashed and set aside against the petitioner and the bail bond of the petitioner furnished in terms of the order dated 28.06.2019 in A.B.P. No. 729 of 2019 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jamshedpur be restored. 13. Accordingly, the order dated 26.11.2019 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Jamshedpur in connection with C1- 2352 of 2018 is quashed and set aside and the bail granted to the petitioner herein vide order dated 28.06.2019 passed in A.B.P. No. 729 of 2019 by the learned Sessions Judge, Jamshedpur and the bail bond is submitted by the petitioner in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Jamshedpur in connection with C1-2352 of 2018 is restored. 14. In the result, this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is allowed.