JUDGMENT : ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J. 1. 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 29.09.2022, passed by the Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi in Criminal Miscellaneous Case No. 212 of 2018, whereby and whereunder the learned Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi has cancelled the anticipatory bail granted by it to the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner who is an accused person of Argora P.S. Case No. 133 of 2017 has violated the condition on the basis of which anticipatory bail was granted to the petitioner. 3. The brief fact of the case is that the petitioner was granted the anticipatory bail vide order dated 16.05.2028 passed in A.B.P. No. 1514 of 2017 in connection with Argora P.S. Case No. 133 of 2017 by learned Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi considering the proposal of the petitioner. 4. Perusal of the order dated 16.05.2018 whereby the petitioner was granted the anticipatory bail in the said A.B.P. No. 1514 of 2017 reveals that the learned Judicial Commissioner perused the agreement arrived at between the parties in the Mediation Centre, Ranchi and from the same it appeared to the learned Judicial Commissioner that both sides have entered into an agreement out of their own free will and accord and there is no liability against the petitioner and granted the anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 5. Consequent upon granting of anticipatory bail, the petitioner appeared before the learned trial court and furnished bail bond in terms of the order dated 16.05.2018 passed by the learned Judicial Commissioner in A.B.P. No. 1514 of 2017. 6. On 29.09.2022 the opposite party filed an application for cancellation of the bail on the ground that five post dated cheques issued by the petitioner herein to the informant of the case got dishonoured and the said cheques were issued in terms of the compromise and considering that the amount of five cheques dishonoured were in total of Rupees 50 lakhs, the learned Judicial Commissioner cancelled the bail granted to the petitioner. 7. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Diksha Kumari vs. State of Jharkhand and Another, (2024) SCC Online Jhar 1455 in which 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, (2001) SCC Online SC 123 paragraphs 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 ball 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 held that cancellation of the bail granted to an accused solely on the ground that terms of compromise had not been complied with is wholly untenable. 8. It is next submitted that this Court in that case also relied upon its own judgment in the case of Jyotshna Sharma @ Jyotsana Anand vs. The State of Jharkhand passed in Cr. 8. It is next submitted that this Court in that case also relied upon its own judgment in the case of Jyotshna Sharma @ Jyotsana Anand vs. The State of Jharkhand passed in Cr. M.P No. 2499 of 2021 dated 01.04.2022 and 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. 9. It is next submitted that in that case this Court also relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Biman Chatterjee vs. Sanchita Chatterjee, (2004) 3 SCC 388 paragraphs 6 and 7 of which read as under: "6. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent, however, contended that the very basis of the grant of bail originally was on an assurance given by the appellant that he would compromise and would keep his wife with him and he having failed to fulfil the said promise made to the court, the High Court was justified in cancelling the bail because the foundation for the grant of bail was the promise made by the appellant. 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. 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. 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." and submits that therein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has reiterated the settled principle of law that the Court could not have cancelled the bail solely on the ground that the accused person had failed to keep up his promise made to the Court. 10. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that Section 22 (3) of the Mediation Act, 2023 envisages that no Court or Tribunal shall take cognizance of information or evidence in any proceeding before a Court in respect of any information of communication set forth in Clauses (i) to (iv) Section 22(1) of the Mediation Act, 2023, that is inputs, acknowledgement, promises, acceptance of willingness, documents prepared or any other mediation communication. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as prayed for in the Cr.M.P. be allowed and the bail bond of the petitioner submitted by him before the trial court in terms of the order dated 16.05.2018 passed in A.B.P. No. 1514 of 2017 by the Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi be restored. 11. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as prayed for in the Cr.M.P. be allowed and the bail bond of the petitioner submitted by him before the trial court in terms of the order dated 16.05.2018 passed in A.B.P. No. 1514 of 2017 by the Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi be restored. 11. Learned Special P.P. and the learned counsel for the O.P. No.2 on the other hand vehemently opposed the prayer and submit that this is a case where though the petitioner issued five cheques to discharge his liability but later on before the Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi he took a completely opposite stand by saying that, he does not have any liability to pay to the informant. Hence, the facts of this case stand in a different footing from the case of Biman Chatterjee vs. Sanchita Chatterjee (supra) and Pritpal Singh vs. State of Bihar (supra). 12. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 relies upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Himanshu Sharma vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2024) INSC 139 and submits that in para 12 therein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held that bail granted to an accused can only be cancelled if the Court is satisfied that after being released on bail:- (a) the accused has misused the liberty granted to him; (b) flouted the conditions of bail order; (c) that the bail was granted in ignorance of statutory provisions restricting the powers of the Court to grant bail; (d) or that the bail was procured by misrepresentation or fraud. 13. It is next submitted that since the petitioner has contravened the conditions of the bail bond, hence, the learned Judicial Commissioner has rightly cancelled the bail granted to the petitioner. It is lastly submitted that this Cr.M.P. will without any merit be dismissed 14. Having heard the submissions made in the Bar and after going through the materials in the Court, it is pertinent to mention here that in the case of Himanshu Sharma vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (supra) the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has reiterated the grounds when bail granted to an accused can be cancelled. 15. Now coming to the facts of the case there is absolutely no condition in the anticipatory bail order except for furnishing the bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- with two sureties of the like amount each. 15. Now coming to the facts of the case there is absolutely no condition in the anticipatory bail order except for furnishing the bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- with two sureties of the like amount each. The undisputed facts remains that the petitioner has already submitted bail bond to the satisfaction of the trial court of Rs. 10,000/- with two sureties of the like amount each. There is no allegation against the petitioner that the petitioner has misused the liberty granted to him. There is no allegation that the bail was granted to the petitioner by the court concerned in ignorance of statutory provision restricting the power of the court to grant of bail nor there is any allegation against that petitioner that the bail was procured by misrepresentation or fraud. 16. The only ground upon which the bail granted to the petitioner has been cancelled is that, the petitioner violated the terms and conditions of the compromise arrived in mediation. Section 22(1) and (3) of the Mediation Act, 2023 which read as under: "22. (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) xxxxxx (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." (Emphasis supplied) goes to show that Section 22 (3) prohibits the Courts inter alia from taking cognizance of any information or evidence in respect to any information or communication set forth in Clauses (i) to (iv) of sub-section 1 of Section 22. 17. 17. In view of the settled principle of law that bail cannot be cancelled on the sole ground for non-compliance of the terms and conditions of the agreement, this Court has no hesitation to holding that the learned Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi has committed a grave illegality by cancelling the anticipatory bail granted to the petitioner; even though there is no violation of the terms and conditions of the bail bond. 18. Under such circumstances, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the order dated 29.09.2022, passed in Criminal Miscellaneous Case No. 212 of 2018 by the learned Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi is not sustainable in law. Accordingly, the same is quashed and set aside. The bail bond submitted by the petitioner before the trial court in connection with Argora P.S. Case No. 133 of 2017 in terms of the order dated 16.05.2018, passed in A.B.P. No. 1514 of 2017, is restored. 19. In the result, this Cr.M.P. is allowed.