Jharkhand High Court
Sanjeev Kumar Singh @ Sanjeeb ... vs The State Of Jharkhand on 21 March, 2023
1 Cr.M.P. No. 1867 of 2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No. 1867 of 2012
Sanjeev Kumar Singh @ Sanjeeb Kumar Singh ... Petitioner
-Versus-
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Ajit Kumar Singh ... Opposite Parties
-----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
-----
For the Petitioner : Mr. Pratiush Lala, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Fahad Allam, A.P.P.
For O.P. No.2 : Mr. Kalyan Banerjee, Advocate
-----
04/21.03.2023 This petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 25.07.2012
passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad in connection with
Jorapokhar P.S. Case No.111 of 2011, G.R. Case No.1744 of 2011, pending
in the court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was on
bail and by the impugned order dated 25.07.2012, his bail was cancelled on
the petition filed by opposite party no.2. He further submits that the
petitioner is ready to appear before the learned court on any date fixed by
this Court. He also submits that in absence of any cogent reason, the
impugned order has been passed which is not in accordance with law. He
submits that identical was the situation in the judgment passed by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Biman Chatterjee v. Sanchita Chatterjee
and another; [(2004) 3 SCC 388] , wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court
set aside the order of the High Court, which has cancelled the bail. He relied
upon paragraph 7 of the said judgment.
3. 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-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."
4. Learned counsel for opposite party no.2 submits that there was no
compromise with the petitioner, however by way of suppressing this fact, he
has obtained bail and that is why, the learned court has cancelled the bail of
the petitioner. He submits that there is no illegality in the impugned order.
5. In view of the above submissions of the learned counsel for the
parties, the Court has gone through the impugned order and finds that the
learned court has been pleased to cancel the bail of the petitioner on the
ground that the petitioner has not fulfilled the terms and condition of
compromise. Identical was the situation before the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in Biman Chatterjee (supra) and the case of the petitioner is fully covered in
light of that judgment.
6. In view of the above facts, the order dated 25.07.2012 passed by the
learned Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad in connection with Jorapokhar P.S.
Case No.111 of 2011, G.R. Case No.1744 of 2011, pending in the court of
the learned Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad is, hereby, set aside. The
petitioner is directed to appear before the learned court on or before
05.04.2023. Since the petitioner was already on bail and bail bond was of
the year 2012, the petitioner is allowed to remain in bail, however fresh bail
bond shall be furnished by the petitioner before the learned court. It is
made clear that if the petitioner failed to appear before the learned court on
or before the aforesaid date, the learned court shall take all coercive
measures against the petitioner, in accordance with law.
7. Accordingly, this petition is disposed of.
8. Interim order, if any granted by this Court, stands vacated.
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
Ajay/
