Jharkhand High Court

M/S Rungta Mines Ltd. Having Its ... vs Thye State Of Jharkhand on 18 July, 2022

                                      1

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI
                               ----

Cr.M.P. No. 1968 of 2021

----

M/s Rungta Mines Ltd. having its office at Rungta House, Chaibasa, PO Chaibasa, PS Chaibasa, District Singhbhum West, through its authorized representative namely Shiharan Das, aged about 62 years, son of Dr.T.C.Das, resident of Rajeshwari Enclave, Railway Station Road, PO Chaibasa, PS Sadar, District West Singhbhum, Jharkhand ..... Petitioner

-- Versus --

1.Thye State of Jharkhand

2.Mantosh Ghosh, son of late Chittranjan Ghosh, resident of Mohalla Gandhitola, Chaibasa, PO Chaibasa, PS Chaibasa, District Singhbhum West, Jharkhand ...... Opposite Parties

----

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

---

For the Petitioner :- Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate For the State :- Mr. P.C.Sinha, Advocate For the O.P.No.2 :- Mr. Rohitashya Roy, AC to GA-III

----

05/18.07.2022 This petition has been filed for quashing the order dated

19.03.2021 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II Chaibasa

in Miscellaneous Criminal Application No.326 of 2020 (arising out of

A.B.P. No.53 of 2020) in connection with Sadar P.S.Case No.44/2019

(corresponding to G.R.Case No.620/2020), whereby the application filed

on behalf of the petitioner for cancellation of the bail bond of the

O.P.No.2 was rejected, pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial

Magistrate, Chaibasa.

Mr. Indrajit Sinha, the learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner submits that the complaint case has been filed being Complaint

Case No.32 of 2019 by the petitioner alleging therein commission of

offences under section 406 and 420 IPC, interalia, for the reason that

accused dishonestly induced the petitioner to pay sum of Rs.10,00,000/-

in discharge of the petitioner's obligation under a land facilitation

agreement and even after receipt of the same the accused did not

perform his part as he had no intention to perform his obligations from

the very beginning. He further submits that dispute in question has been

referred to the mediation Centre at DLSA, Dhanbad and in the mediation

both the parties have arrived at compromise and as per the terms and

conditions of such settlement it has been submitted that Rs.8 lakh will be

refunded by the O.P.No.2 and Rs.2 lakh has already been paid and the

remaining Rs.6 lakh was required to be refunded in terms of the

agreement in view of paragraph no.3 of the said settlement and submits

that based on this settlement the learned court has granted anticipatory

bail. He further submits that however apart from Rs.2 lakh further EMI as

agreed between the parties have not been paid by the O.P.No.2 and for

that non-compliance, the petitioner filed petition which was rejected by

the learned court by order dated 19.03.2021. He submits that once the

agreement has been entered into between the parties before the

mediation centre it was expected to fulfill the terms and based on which

the anticipatory bail has been granted. He relied in the case of Union

Bank of India v. State of Jharkhand and Others, MANU/JH/1388/2011

(Cr.M.P.No.1285 of 2009), paragraph no.5 of the said judgment is quoted

below:

"Having heard the learned counsel appearing rot he parties and on perusal of the order under which petitioner was granted anticipatory bail it does appear that statement was made that a settlement has arrived at in between the petitioner and the bank whereby schedule of payment has been given and in terms of the settlement a sum of Rs.25 lakhs has been deposited and that the petitioner will go on depositing the money and at the same time statement was made that another sale deed in palace of sale deed which was found to be tampered would be deposited as collateral security arid taking into account the aforesaid submissions the petitioner was granted anticipatory bail but from the submission advanced on behalf of the parties it does appears that the petitioner after passing of the order never deposited any amount nor the petitioner did file original copy of the sale deed as collateral security. That apart, the petitioner also did not honour his commitment made before this court during hearing of this application that the petitioner would pay a sum of Rs.25 lakhs in order to get the matter settlement initiated."

Relying on this judgment he submits that in this case also

the terms and the conditions has not been fulfilled that the concerned

court has cancelled the bail.

Mr. Rohitashya Roy, the learned counsel appearing for the

O.P.No.2 submits that the learned court has not allowed the anticipatory

bail on the ground of settlement. He further submits that the question of

fact of terms and condition has also been taken by the learned court and

thereafter bail has been cancelled. He further submits that in the trial the

evidences have already been completed and the matter is pending before

the court for final argument on behalf of both the sides. He relied in the

case of Biman Chatterjee v. Sanchita Chatterjee and Another, (2004) 3

SCC 388, paragraph no.7 of the said judgment is quoted hereinbelow:

"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. 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."

He further submits that non-fulfillment of terms on the

basis of compromise bail was not cancelled and that was the subject

before this Court in the case of Amr Chouhan @ Amar Singh Chouhan v.

The State of Jharkhand and Another, 2016 SCC OnLine Jhar 1018

(Cr.M.P.No.255 of 2016), paragraph no.11 of the said judgment is quoted

below. He further submits that once the bail has been granted in a

routine manner it is well settled that bail is not required to be cancelled:

"11. It, thus, appears that ratio with respect to cancellation of bail has been clearly laid down, inasmuch as, non-fulfillment of the terms of the compromise cannot be a basis for cancelling bail. Moreover, some doubt definitely creeps out, since the opposite party no.2 was purported to be treated at Dhanbad on 10.12.2015 for an assault which had taken place on 04.12.2015 at Asansole in the State of West Bengal. It is an admitted position that the occurrence of purported assault had taken place on 04.12.2012; she was treated on 10.12.2015 at Dhanbad -4- and the application for cancellation of bail was filed on 10.12.2015 by the opposite party no.2, but the injury report was never brought on record along with an application dated 10.12.2015 filed for cancellation of bail. Subsequently, by way of list of documents filed on 18.12.2015 the alleged injury report has been brought on record. In such circumstance, therefore, I find that the learned Additional Sessions Judge XI, Dhanbad, did not consider the aforesaid aspects of the matter while cancelling the bail granted earlier to the petitioner in his order dated 05.01.2016."