(2026:JHHC:4897) 1 Cr.M.P. No.438 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No.438 of 2024 ------ Ajay Mandal, Aged About 27 years S/O Ghanshyam Mandal, Resident of Village-Bhagaiya, P.O.- Thakurgangti, P.S.- Meharma, Dist- Godda. … … …Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Gunjan Devi, W/o Ajay Mandal, D/o. Gauri Shankar Manjhi, Resident of Village- Bhagaiya, P.O.- Thakurgangti, P.S.- Meharma, Dist- Godda. … … …Opposite Parties ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Manoj Kr. Sah, Advocate For the State : Mr. Vishwanath Roy, Spl.P.P. For the O.P. No.2 : None ------ P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY By the Court:- Heard the parties. 2. Though notice has been validly served upon the opposite party no. 2 yet no one turns up on behalf of opposite party No. 2 in spite of repeated calls. 3. 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 12.04.2023 passed in Misc. Criminal Application No.571 of 2022 in connection with Pathargama P.S. Case No. 09 of 2020 by the learned I/C Additional Sessions Judge-III, (2026:JHHC:4897) 2 Cr.M.P. No.438 of 2024 Godda whereby and whereunder, the learned I/C Additional Sessions Judge-III, Godda has cancelled the bail granted to the petitioner for not complying with the conditions of bail which was granted to the petitioner in terms of the order dated 05.04.2022 passed in B.P. No.150 of 2022. 4. The brief facts of this case is that the petitioner was granted regular bail vide order dated 05.04.2022 passed in B.P. No.150 of 2022 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, Godda without any condition but it transpires from the order dated 05.04.2022 passed in B.P. No.150 of 2022 that the bail was granted to the petitioner consequent upon the mediation between the petitioner and his wife which was successful and parties have settled their matter and decided to live together. The opposite party No. 2 filed Misc. Criminal Application No. 571 of 2022 for cancellation of the bail granted to the petitioner, as he has deserted his wife after being released on bail, which violated the very basis on which the bail was granted to him and considering the same, the learned I/C Additional Sessions Judge-III, Godda cancelled the bail granted to the petitioner. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Deepak Kumar Choubey @ Dipak Kumar Choubey vs. The State of Jharkhand & Anr. reported in 2023 Supreme (jhk)1446 and submits that in that case this Court relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Biman Chatterjee vs. Sanchita Chatterjee & Another 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 (2026:JHHC:4897) 3 Cr.M.P. No.438 of 2024 bail. 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 Pritpal Singh vs. State of Bihar reported in 2001 SCC OnLine SC 123 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India observed that cancellation of bail to the accused persons solely on the ground that the terms of the compromise have not been complied with, is untenable. In that case, this Court also reiterated the settled principle of law that bail once granted can ordinarily be cancelled on the grounds as mentioned in paragraph-8 of that judgment, which reads as under:- “(i) by indulging in similar criminal activity, (ii) interfering with the course of investigation, (iii) attempted to tamper with the 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.” 6. It is next submits that in view of the same, the prayer, as prayed for in the instant Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, be allowed. 7. Learned Special P.P. appearing for the State opposes the prayer of the petitioner made in the instant Criminal Miscellaneous Petition and submits that this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, being without any merit, be dismissed. 8. 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 I/C Additional Sessions Judge-III, (2026:JHHC:4897) 4 Cr.M.P. No.438 of 2024 Godda has cancelled the bail granted to the petitioner only on the ground that he has failed to act upon the assurance given by him on the basis of which bail was granted to him. 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 I/C Additional Sessions Judge-III, Godda has committed a grave illegality by cancelling the bail granted to the petitioner on the sole ground that the petitioner did not honour the assurance given by him in a mediation proceeding. 9. 9. It is a settled principle of law that that proceedings before mediation are not to be taken note of in any judicial proceeding or else the very purpose of holding the mediation where many concessions are made and discussed, will be frustrated; hence the parties will not be ready and willing to concede anything with the fear that the same may be utilized against them in any judicial proceeding. There is absolutely no allegation against the petitioner of having violated any of the conditions as mentioned above in the foregoing paragraphs of this judgment being the grounds for cancellation of bail once granted. 10. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the order dated 12.04.2023 passed in Misc. Criminal Application No.571 of (2026:JHHC:4897) 5 Cr.M.P. No.438 of 2024 2022 in connection with Pathargama P.S. Case No. 09 of 2020 by which the learned I/C Additional Sessions Judge-III, Godda has cancelled the bail granted to the petitioner, is not sustainable in law and the continuation of the same will amount to abuse of process of law. 11. Accordingly, the order dated 12.04.2023 passed in Misc. Criminal Application No.571 of 2022 in connection with Pathargama P.S. Case No. 09 of 2020, is quashed and set aside and the bail bond submitted by the petitioner before the learned Trial Court in terms of the order dated 05.04.2022 passed in B.P. No.150 of 2022, is restored. 12. In the result, this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is allowed. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi 18th of February, 2026 AFR/ Rahul Uploaded on- 26/02/2026