Jharkhand High Court
Apradh Anusandhan Vibhag Karamchari ... vs The State Of Jharkhand on 25 April, 2025
Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary
( 2025:JHHC:12474 )
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No.2673 of 2023
------
Apradh Anusandhan Vibhag Karamchari Grih Nirman Swawlambi
Sahkari Samittee Limited, registered office at Raja Rani Kothi Nepal
House, Doranda, P.O. and P.S.-Doranda, District Ranchi, through its
President-Indra Mani Choudhary, Retd. Dy. S.P., son of Ram Deo
Choudhary, R/o Flat No.210, Nila Enclave, New Nagra Toli, P.O. and P.S.
Lalpur, District Ranchi (Jharkhand).
... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Mahesh Ram Paswan, son of Late Janki Ram Paswan, resident of CID
Colony, Simaliya, P.O. & P.S.-Ratu, District-Ranchi.
3. Baij Nath Singh, son of Late Keshri Singh, resident of House no.48A,
Old A.G. Colony, Kadru, P.O. and P.S.-Argora, District-Ranchi.
... Opposite Parties
------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
------
For the Petitioner : Mr. A.K. Kashyap, Sr.Advocate
: Mr. Anurag Kashyap, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Vineet Kr. Vashistha, Spl.P.P.
------
Order No:-06 Dated:-25-04-2025
1. Heard the parties.
2. Though, notice has been validly served upon the opposite party
no.2 and 3, yet no one turns up on behalf of the opposite party no.2 and 3 in
spite of repeated calls.
3. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the
jurisdiction of this Court under Section 439(2) of the Cr.P.C. with a prayer to
cancel the anticipatory bail granted to the opposite party No.2 and 3 in
connection with Doranda P.S. Case No.177 of 2020 and also to quash the order
dated 28.03.2023 passed by the Additional Judicial Commissioner-II, Ranchi in
Cr. Misc. Case No.183 of 2021.
4. The brief fact of the case is that the opposite party No.2 and 3 were
given the privileges of anticipatory bail vide order dated 25.01.2021 passed in
A.B.P. No.1252 of 2020 passed by the Additional Judicial Commissioner-XVII,
Ranchi subject to terms and condition of mediation report which was intimated
by the Mediation Centre, Ranchi vide letter no.103 dated 18.01.2021. It is
alleged by the petitioner that the opposite party no.2 and 3 have violated the
conditions of bail granted to them in terms of the said order passed by the
Additional Judicial Commissioner-XVII, Ranchi in A.B.P. No.1252 of 2020. The
petition filed by the petitioner in the Court of Additional Judicial
Commissioner-II, Ranchi was rejected by the learned Additional Judicial
Commissioner-II, Ranchi; vide order dated 28.03.2023, after observing that
since the part of the land to be settled is a CNT and Bhuihari land and in spite
of applications filed on behalf of the opposite party no.2 and 3, the Circle
Officer rejected the application for mutation, hence, there is no justifiable
reason to cancel the bail granted to the opposite party no.2 and 3.
5. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that as per
Clause 9 of the settlement agreement dated 18.01.2021, the opposite party no.2
and 3 and one Shailendra Kumar, were to get the mutation of the rest of the
land i.e. 2229.8 decimals done within the month of June, 2021, but they failed to
do so. It is next submitted that the opposite party no.2 and 3 themselves being
office bearers; in connivance with other office bearers of Apradh Anusandhan
Vibhag Karamchari Grih Nirman Swawlambi Sahkari Samittee Limited, did not
take any interest in compliance of the audit rather during the relevant period, a
number of transactions were done by the Ex-Board of Directors of the said
society. It is next submitted that the order of Circle Officer rejecting the petition
for mutation shows opposite party no.2 and 3 have committed the offence for
which they are facing the trial and opposite party no.2 and 3 have embezzled
about Rs.25 crores, hence, it is submitted that the prayer as prayed for in this
Cr.M.P., be allowed.
6. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner relying upon the judgment of
co-ordinate bench of this Court in the case of Shabana Parveen @ Sabana vs.
State of Jharkhand and Anr. reported in [2014 (1) East Cr C 300 (Jhr)] wherein
in the facts of the case, the accused after furnishing bail bond, took his wife and
child to the Shrista of the counsel of the accused but fled away after leaving
them there, the coordinate Bench of this Court was of the view that that was a
fit case for the cancellation of bail.
7. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner next relies upon the
judgment of another co-ordinate bench of this Court in the case of Union Bank
of India vs. State of Jharkhand and Anr. reported in [2011 (4) J C R 116 (Jhr)]
and submits that in that case when a settlement was arrived at between the
petitioner and the bank and taking that into consideration, the accused of the
case was granted anticipatory bail, but the accused of that case did not deposit
the amount nor filed the original sale deed as collateral security and did not
honor the commitment made before the Court, therefore, in the case, also
another coordinate Bench of this Court cancelled, the bail granted to the
accused.
8. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner next relied upon the
judgment of the learned Single Judge of Patna High Court in the case of
Kumari Juhi Rai vs. State of Bihar & Ors. reported in [2012 (1) East Cr C 600
(Pat)], wherein it was observed that violation of any of the terms and
conditions by the accused of a case would be construed as a misuse of privilege
of bail and consequences shall follow.
9. Learned Spl.P.P. on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer
and relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Md. Azad Khan @
Azad Khan vs. The State of Jharkhand dated 10.05.2024 passed in Cr.M.P.
No.285 of 2022. It is next submitted that in that case, this Court took note of
Section 22 of the Mediation Act, 2023 and held that in view of Section 22(3) of
the Mediation Act, 2023, the proceedings of mediation cannot be used in any
court of law. It is then submitted that in that case, this court has held that in
view of the bar under Section 22(3) of the Mediation Act, 2023, the cognizance
of the proceedings in a mediation cannot be taken note of by any court. It is
further submitted that it is also a settled principle of law that bail granted to an
accused person of the case; cannot be cancelled, merely on the ground that
something decided in a mediation settlement has not been complied with. It is
next submitted that, therefore, there is no illegality in the order passed by the
Additional Judicial Commissioner-XVII, Ranchi, hence, it is submitted that this
Cr.M.P., being without any merit, be dismissed.
10. Having heard the submission made at the bar and after carefully
going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention
here that it is a settled principle of law that merely because the terms and
conditions of compromise have not been complied with by an accused; the
petition for cancellation of bail cannot be allowed as has been held by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Pritpal Singh vs. State of Bihar
reported in 2001 SCC OnLine SC 123, para-4 and 5 of which reads as under:-
4. "The dispute raised in the case relates to eviction of the
appellant who is the tenant from the premises of which the respondent
is the owner. Previously, there was a compromise between the parties
in which it was agreed inter alia that the appellant will pay certain
amount to the respondent and vacate the premises by the time
stipulated. On the allegation that the appellant has failed to comply
with the terms of the compromise by not vacating the premises in
question within the time stipulated, the petition for cancellation of bail
was filed. It is stated by learned counsel for the appellant that neither
was any averment made in the petition about misuse of liberty granted
to the appellant nor was any difficulty alleged to have been faced by
the prosecution in the case on the ground of the appellant being at
large.
5. The Magistrate cancelled the bail granted to the appellant
solely on the ground that the terms of the compromise had not been
complied with. To say the least, the ground on which the petition for
cancellation of bail was made and was granted is wholly untenable. It
is our view that the order if allowed to stand will result in abuse of the
process of court. The High Court clearly erred in maintaining the
order. Therefore, the order passed by the Magistrate cancelling the bail
and the order of the High Court confirming the said order are set
aside. The bail order is restored. The appeal is allowed." (Emphasis
supplied)
and submits that this Court in the case of Jyotshna Sharma @ Jyotsana
Anand vs. The State of Jharkhand & Others (supra) enumerated the following
grounds illustratively though not exhaustively; where bail granted to an
accused can be cancelled:-
(i) by indulging in similar criminal activity,
(ii) interfering with the course of investigation,
(iii) attempted to tamper with evidence or witnesses,
(iv) threaten witnesses or indulge 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.
11. Now coming to the facts of the case, as rightly submitted by the
learned Spl.P.P. in view of section 22(3) of the Mediation Act, 2023, which reads
as under:-
"No party to the mediation shall in any proceeding before a court or tribunal
including arbitral tribunal, rely on or introduce as evidence any information or
communication set both in clauses (i) to (iv) of sub-section (1), including any
information in electronic form, or verbal communication and the court or
tribunal including arbitral tribunals sell not take cognizance of such information
or evidence."
there is a bar for any party to a mediation proceeding to introduce as evidence
any information or communication set forth in Clauses (i) to (iv) of the Section
22(1) of the Mediation Act, 2023. From the plain reading of the said section
22(3) of the Mediation Act, 2023; it is crystal clear because of the prohibition the
settlements in the mediations have been excluded to be considered, inter alia by
any Court; obviously, in order to facilitate an unhindered, free and fair
exchange of thoughts and conditions during the mediation, to facilitate an
effective mediation. The only allegation against the opposite party no.2 and 3 is
that they have violated the terms and conditions of the mediation. As already
mentioned above it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the
case of Pritpal Singh vs. State of Bihar reported in 2001 SCC OnLine SC 123
(Supra), that violation of the terms and condition of compromise cannot be a
ground for cancellation of bail.
12. In none of the judgments relied upon by the learned Senior Counsel
for the petitioner, 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
(Supra) was considered.
13. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that
the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-II, Ranchi has not committed
any illegality by rejecting the prayer for cancellation of bail granted to the
opposite party no.2 and 3, hence, there is no justifiable reason to cancel the bail
granted to the opposite party no.2 in connection with Doranda P.S. Case No.177
of 2020 and also to quash the order dated 28.03.2023 passed by the Additional
Judicial Commissioner-II, Ranchi in Cr. Misc. Case No.183 of 2021.
14. Accordingly, this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, being without any
merit, is dismissed.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)
AFR-Abhiraj/
