[Cites 6, Cited by 0]
Jharkhand High Court
Bhola Kumar Sahu vs The State Of Jharkhand ... Opposite ... on 3 December, 2025
Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary
[2025:JHHC:37139]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No.2738 of 2024
------
1. Bhola Kumar Sahu, Aged About 35 years, S/O- Chunnu Lal
Sahu @ Chhunnu Sahu
2. Deepak Kumar Sahu, Aged About 37 years, S/O- Baleshwar
Sahu, both R/O- Village- Sakin Hochar, Near Mahabir
Mandir, PO+PS - Kanke, Dist- Ranchi, Jharkhand.
... Petitioners
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... Opposite Party
------
For the Petitioners : Mr. Avishek Prasad, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Satish Prasad, Addl.P.P.
------
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
By the Court:- Heard the parties.
2. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the
jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of the B.N.S.S., 2023 with
the prayer to quash the order dated 14.11.2019 passed by the learned
Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi in Criminal Misc. Case No. 167 of 2018
whereby and where under the anticipatory bail earlier granted vide
order dated 18.06.2017 passed in A.B.P. No. 1315 of 2016 has been
cancelled. A further prayer has also been made to quash the order
dated 08.08.2022 whereby and where under the learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Ranchi has directed Office Clerk to comply with the
previous order and to issue non-bailable warrant against the
petitioners.
[2025:JHHC:37139]
3. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the
petitioners do not press the prayer to quash the order dated 08.08.2022
passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate in connection with
Kanke P.S. Case No. 70 of 2016 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 4013 of
2016 and confines their prayer only to quash the order dated 14.11.2019
passed by the learned Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi in Criminal Misc.
Case No. 167 of 2018.
4. Accordingly, the prayer to quash the order dated 08.08.2022
passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate in connection with
Kanke P.S. Case No. 70 of 2016 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 4013 of
2016, Ranchi is rejected as not pressed.
5. So far as the order dated 14.11.2019 passed by the learned
Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi in Criminal Misc. Case No. 167 of 2018
arising out of G.R. Case No. 4013 of 2016 is concerned, the learned
counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners were given the
privileges of anticipatory bail vide order dated 18.06.2017 in which the
condition was that the petitioner will make full and final payment as
per the settlement agreement arrived at between the parties till 20th
July, 2017 and then to furnish bail bond of Rs.10,000/- with two
sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the court below
subjection to the condition as laid down under Section 438(2) of the
Code of Criminal Procedure. However, no time period was fixed for
the petitioner to surrender and furnish bail bond in connection with
the said order dated 18.06.2017 passed by the learned Judicial
Commissioner, Ranchi in A.B.P. No. 1315 of 2016.
[2025:JHHC:37139]
6. Relying upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Diksha
Kumari @ Disksha Kumari vs. The State of Jharkhand & Another
passed in Cr.M.P. No. 1939 of 2022 dated 24.04.2024, the learned
counsel for the petitioners submits that in that case, this Court relied
upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case
of Biman Chatterjee vs. Sanchita Chatterjee & Another reported in
(2004) 3 SCC 388 paragraph-7 of which reads as under:-
"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."
wherein it was observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India
that non-fulfilment of the terms of the compromise cannot be the basis
of granting or cancelling a bail.
[2025:JHHC:37139]
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners next relies upon the
judgment of this Court in the case of Apradh Anusandhan Vibhag
Karamchari Grih Nirman Swawlambi Sahkari Samittee Limited vs.
The State of Jharkhand & Another passed in Cr.M.P. No. 2615 of 2023
dated 27.08.2025 and submits that therein, this Court relied upon 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, para-5
of which reads as under:-
"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)
wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has reiterated the
settled principle of law that cancellation of the bail granted to the
accused person solely on the ground that the terms of the compromise
had not been complied with, is wholly untenable. Hence, it is
submitted that the impugned order dated 14.11.2019 passed by the
learned Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi in Criminal Misc. Case No. 167
of 2018 be quashed and set aside against the petitioners.
8. Learned Addl.P.P. appearing for the State on the other hand
vehemently opposes the prayer of the petitioners made in this Criminal
Miscellaneous Petition and submits that in view of the settled principle
of law in the case of Pritpal Singh vs. State of Bihar (supra), the order
dated 18.06.2017 passed by the learned Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi
[2025:JHHC:37139]
in A.B.P. No. 1315 of 2016 is not sustainable in law. Hence, the same
having been rightly quashed and set aside, does not require to be
restored. Hence, it is submitted that this Criminal Miscellaneous
Petition, being without any merit, be dismissed.
9. Having heard the rival submissions 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 as has been
reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Biman
Chatterjee vs. Sanchita Chatterjee & Another (supra) that non-
fulfilment of the terms of the compromise cannot be the basis of
granting or cancelling a bail but vide the order dated 18.06.2017 passed
by the learned Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi in A.B.P. No. 1315 of
2016, the learned Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi has exactly done the
same, by imposing the condition of fulfilling the terms of the
compromise arrived at before the mediator as the conditions of the bail.
Hence, the order dated 18.06.2017 passed by the learned Judicial
Commissioner, Ranchi in A.B.P. No. 1315 of 2016 is not sustainable in
law; more so because no outer time period has been fixed for the
petitioners to surrender before the court concerned in the said order.
10. Accordingly, this Court is not inclined to restore the order dated
18.06.2017 passed by the learned Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi in
A.B.P. No. 1315 of 2016 as the same has been passed in violation of
settled principle of law.
11. The petitioners are at liberty to file a fresh anticipatory bail
petition and in case the same is filed, the same shall be considered by
[2025:JHHC:37139]
the learned Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi without being influenced
by this order or the previous orders.
12. In the result, this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is allowed to
the aforesaid extent only.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)
High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi
Dated the 03rd of December, 2025
AFR/ Saroj
Uploaded on 11/12/2025
