Jharkhand High Court
Dr. Anil Kumar Choudhary vs The State Of Jharkhand on 3 April, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No. 666 of 2013
Dr. Anil Kumar Choudhary ..... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand.
2. Dr. Poonam Jaiswal ..... ... Opposite Parties.
--------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Ajit Kumar, Advocate.
For the State : Ms. Nehala Sharmin, Spl.P.P.
For the O.P. No. 2 : Ms Amrita Sinha, Advocate.
------
09/ 03.04.2023 Heard Mr. Ajit Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner, Ms Nehala Sharmin, learned Spl.P.P. for the State and Ms
Amrita Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the O.P. No. 2.
2. This petition has been filed for quashing of the order dated
02.03.2013, passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Jamshedpur,
in Misc. Petition No. 41 of 2012, whereby the bail granted to the petitioner
has been cancelled.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that
Mango P.S. Case No. 511 of 2011 was registered for the offences under
Sections 494/498-A of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner. He
submits that in that case, the petitioner has preferred anticipatory bail in
A.B.P. No. 900 of 2011, wherein the petitioner was granted anticipatory
bail, vide order dated 07.06.2012 by the learned Principal Sessions Judge,
in view of the mediation report. He further submits that the learned
Principal Sessions Judge has been pleased to cancel the bail, on the ground
that the petitioner has not fulfilled the terms of the compromise, on the
basis of which, the anticipatory bail was granted to him. He further
submits that the petitioner is ready to appear before the learned court and
will also co-operate in the trial.
4. On the other hand Ms Amrita Sinha, learned counsel
appearing for the O.P. No. 2 submits that the petitioner has violated the
terms and conditions of the compromise, on the basis of which, he has
been provided the privilege of anticipatory bail, that's why the learned
court has cancelled the anticipatory bail. She further submits that the case
is pending since long before the learned court and the petitioner is also not
appearing before the learned court. She further submits that the petitioner
has remarried on the basis of ex-parte divorce. She further submits that in
F.A. No. 23 of 2022, the said ex-parte divorce has been challenged before
this Hon'ble Court. On these grounds, she submits that there is no
illegality in the impugned order.
5. Learned Spl.P.P. appearing for the State submits that the
petitioner has violated the terms and conditions of the compromise, that's
why, the learned court has cancelled the bail of the petitioner.
6. In view of the above facts and submissions of learned counsel
appearing for the parties, the court has gone through the materials
available on record including the order impugned herein. It is an admitted
fact that the case has been lodged under Sections 494 / 498-A of the Indian
Penal Code against the petitioner.
7. 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."
8. It is also 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."
9. The Court has perused the relevant ordersheets of A.B.P. No.
900 of 2011, contained in Annexure-2 of the petition. The learned court
has granted anticipatory bail on the facts as well as the settlement and
subsequently by order dated 02.03.2013, the petition filed by opposite
party no.2 has been allowed. Once the settlement is reached between the
parties and certain terms and conditions of settlement have not been
complying with, in that scenario, anticipatory bail granted to the petitioner
can be cancelled or not, it is well answered in the cases of Biman
Chatteree and Amr Chouhan @ Amar Singh Chouhan (supra).
10. In view of the above, the impugned order dated 02.03.2013,
passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Jamshedpur, in Misc.
Petition No. 41 of 2012, whereby the bail granted to the petitioner has
been cancelled, is hereby, set aside. The petitioner shall remain on the
same bail bond, in terms of the order dated 07.06.2012, passed in A.B.P.
No. 900 of 2011 [in connection with Mango P.S. Case No. 511 of 2011].
11. In view of the submission of learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner, petitioner shall appear before the learned court as and when
required.
12. It is made clear that on failure of appearance by the petitioner,
the learned Court shall take all coercive action against the petitioner.
13. With the above direction, this criminal miscellaneous petition
stands disposed of.
14. Interim order, granted earlier, stands vacated.
15. Pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of.
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
Amitesh/-
