Jharkhand High Court
Rina Sharma @ Reena Sharma @ vs The State Of Jharkhand on 14 September, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No. 654 of 2022
1. Rina Sharma @ Reena Sharma @
Swati @ Reena Sharma Swati
2. Manoj Sharma @ Manoj
3. Bijay Kumar Singh @ Vijay Kr. Singh
4. Punam Singh @ Poonam Singh ..... ... Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand.
2. Ajit Kumar ..... ... Opposite Parties
--------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
------
For the Petitioners : Mr. Vikash Kumar, Advocate.
For the State : Mr. V.K. Vashistha, Spl.P.P.
For the O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Rohit, Advocate.
------
05/ 14.09.2022 Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. This petition has been filed for quashing of the order dated
20.01.2022, passed in Criminal Misc. No. 11 of 2021, by the learned
Sessions Judge, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur, in connection with Mango
(Ulidih) P.S. Case No. 291 of 2020, whereby the anticipatory bail of the
petitioners have been cancelled and direction has been issued to take all
coercive steps against the petitioners, the case is pending in the Court of
learned Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the
complaint was converted into FIR and considering the submissions of
parties, the matter was referred for mediation between the parties and the
matter was compromised and in terms of an agreement dated 17.06.2021,
it was agreed that the petitioners will pay Rs. 10,000/- per month as EMI
for refund of Rs. 20 lakhs and on the said condition, the learned court has
granted anticipatory bail to the petitioners in A.B.P. No. 701 of 2021.
Learned counsel submits that due to Covid-19, they have not been able to
pay the EMI and considering that the learned court has cancelled the
anticipatory bail of the petitioners and directed to take all coercive actions
against them.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the O.P. No. 2 submits that the
petitioners are not abiding the terms of the agreement, on the basis of
which, they have been granted the anticipatory bail.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the
Demand Draft of Rs. 2,30,000/- is ready in the name of the O.P. No. 2 and
a copy thereof has been served upon the learned counsel appearing for the
O.P. No. 2. He further submits that the original Demand Draft is with the
learned lawyer, who is conducting the case before the learned court at
Jamshedpur. He undertakes that the same shall be handed over to the O.P.
No. 2 by the end of this week.
6. 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. A reference may be made to
the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Biman Chatterjee v. Sanchita Chatterjee & another, reported in (2004) 3
SCC 388. Paragraph 7 of the said judgment is quoted herein below:-
"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-fulfillent 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."
7. It is settled that for non-fulfilment of the terms and conditions
of the compromise, the bail is not required to be cancelled and that was the
subject matter before this Court in the case of Amr Chouhan @ Amar
Singh Chouhan v. The State of Jharkhand & another, reported in 2016
SCC OnLine Jhar 1018 (Cr.M.P. No.255 of 2016). Paragraph 11 of the
said judgment is quoted herein below:-
"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 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."
8. In view of the above, it appears that the petitioners are ready
to pay a sum of Rs. 2,30,000/- through Demand Draft and the same shall
be handed over to the O.P. No. 2 by the end of this week, the order dated
20.01.2022, passed in Criminal Misc. No. 11 of 2021, by the learned
Sessions Judge, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur, in connection with Mango
(Ulidih) P.S. Case No. 291 of 2020, whereby the anticipatory bail of the
petitioners has been cancelled and direction has been issued to take all
coercive steps against the petitioners, the case is pending in the Court of
learned Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur, is hereby, set aside.
9. The petitioners shall be allowed to remain on same bail in
terms of the order of learned Sessions Judge, East Singhbhum,
Jamshedpur, by which, the petitioners have been granted anticipatory bail.
10. This petition is, accordingly, disposed of.
11. Interim order, granted earlier, stands vacated.
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
Amitesh/-
