Jharkhand High Court
Raju Sanga vs Rajendra Agrawal on 5 May, 2025
Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary
(2025:JHHC:13590)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No.629 of 2025
------
Raju Sanga, aged about 36 years, S/o Santu Sanga, R/o Village -
Jorar, P.O. & P.S. Namkum, District- Ranchi, Jharkhand
... Petitioner
Versus
1. Rajendra Agrawal, aged about 63 years, S/o Late Sharwan
Agarwal, R/o - Village - Risabh Tower, Line Tank Road besides
Showroom of Toyata Chadri, P.O. & P.S. - Kotwali, District- Ranchi
2. The State of Jharkhand ... Opposite Parties
------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Rahul Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Subodh Kr. Dubey, Addl.P.P.
For the O.P. No.1 : Mr. Ritesh Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Rakesh Kr. Sinha, Advocate
------
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
By the Court:- I.A. No.4411 of 2025 and I.A. No.5073 of 2025
Heard the parties.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner does not
press I.A. No.4411 of 2025 and I.A. No.5073 of 2025.
Accordingly, I.A. No.4411 of 2025 and I.A. No.5073 of 2025 stand rejected
as not pressed.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)
This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the
jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha
Sanhita, 2023 with a prayer to quash the order dated 27.01.2024 passed by the
learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-XV, Ranchi in Criminal
Miscellaneous Case No.78 of 2023 arising out of A.B.P. No.1341 of 2021
(2025:JHHC:13590)
whereby and where under the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-XV,
Ranchi has cancelled the bail granted to the petitioner in connection with
Namkum P.S. Case No.29 of 2021 registered for the offence punishable under
Sections 420, 406, 468, 471, 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. The brief facts of the case is that the petitioner is an accused person of the
said Namkum P.S. Case No.29 of 2021 and he was granted the privileges of
anticipatory bail vide order dated 06.07.2022 in A.B.P. No.1341 of 2021 on the
basis of successful mediation and one of the condition of the mediation being
that the petitioner will pay Rs.35,00,000/- in installments of Rs.5,00,000/- per
month starting from May, 2022 and the entire installment amount was to be
completed by October, 2022. There were several undertakings given in the
Criminal Miscellaneous Case No.78 of 2023 which was filed by the opposite
party No.1/informant for cancellation of the bail and the learned counsel for
the petitioner submits that by now, the petitioner has already paid
Rs.25,00,000/- which fact is also acknowledged by the learned counsel for the
opposite party No.1.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment of this Court
in the case of Dharmendra Kumar Sao @ Dharmendra Kumar @ Dharmendra
Saw vs. The State of Jharkhand & Another passed in Cr.M.P. No.1429 of 2021
dated 16th February, 2024 and submits that this Court considering the principle
of law settled 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 paragraphs-4
and 5 of which read 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
(2025:JHHC:13590)
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)
set aside the order by which bail of the accused person was cancelled by
the trial court for not adhering to the terms of compromise.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further relies upon the judgment of
this Court in the case of Jyotshna Sharma @ Jyotsana Anand vs. The State of
Jharkhand & Others passed in Cr.M.P No.2499 of 2021 dated 01.04.2022 and
submits that therein this Court enumerated the following grounds illustratively
though not exhaustively; where bail granted to an accused person 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 indulges 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.
and set aside the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge,
Jamshedpur by which the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jamshedpur
(2025:JHHC:13590)
cancelled the bail granted to the petitioner of that case consequent upon the
petitioner of that case failing to comply with the terms of compromise.
5. In this respect, learned counsel for the petitioner also relies upon the
judgment of this Court in the case of Diksha Kumari @ Disksha Kumari vs.
The State of Jharkhand & Another reported in Cr.M.P. No.1939 of 2022 dated
24th of April, 2024. It is then submitted that the learned Additional Judicial
Commissioner-XV, Ranchi having cancelled the bail granted to the petitioner
solely for the reason that the terms and conditions of the mediation is not
complied with; the prayer as prayed for in the instant Cr.M.P., be allowed.
6. Learned Addl.P.P. appearing for the State and the learned counsel for the
opposite party No.1 vehemently oppose the prayer of the petitioner made in
the instant Cr.M.P. and submit that the petitioner has deliberately violated the
terms and conditions of the mediation and undertaking given by him before
the Court. Hence, it is submitted that the learned Additional Judicial
Commissioner-XV, Ranchi has rightly cancelled the bail granted to the
petitioner. Hence, it is submitted that this Cr.M.P., being without any merit, be
dismissed.
7. 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 Section 22 of the Mediation Act, 2023 which reads as under:-
22. Confidentiality.- (1) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the
mediator, mediation service provider, the parties and participants in the mediation shall
keep confidential all the following matters relating to the mediation proceedings,
namely:--
(i) acknowledgements, opinions, suggestions, promises, proposals, apologies and
admissions made during the mediation;
(2025:JHHC:13590)
(ii) acceptance of, or willingness to, accept proposals made or exchanged in the
mediation;
(iii) documents prepared solely for the conduct of mediation or in relation
thereto;
(iv) any other mediation communication.
(2) No audio or video recording of the mediation proceedings shall be made or
maintained by the parties or the participants including the mediator and mediation
service provider, whether conducted in person or online to ensure confidentiality of the
conduct of mediation proceedings.
(3) 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 forth 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 tribunal shall not take cognizance of such information or evidence.
(4) The provisions of this section shall not prevent the mediator from compiling
or disclosing general information concerning matters that have been subject of
mediation, for research, reporting or training purposes, if the information does not
expressly or indirectly identify a party or participants or the specific disputes in the
mediation."
A plain reading of Section 22 (3) of the Mediation Act, 2023 will reveal
that Section 22 (3) of the Mediation Act, 2023 envisages that no party to the
mediation shall in any proceeding before a court or tribunal, rely on or
introduce as evidence any information or communication set forth inter alia
acknowledgment made during the mediation, acceptance or willingness made
in the mediation or any other mediation proceeding.
(2025:JHHC:13590)
8. It is also a settled principle of law as has been held by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India in the case of Pritpal Singh vs. State of Bihar (supra)
that the cancelling of bail granted to an accused in a case solely on the ground
that the terms of the compromise, has not been complied with, is untenable.
9. Now, coming to the facts of the case, there is no allegation against the
petitioner of having committed any of the grounds for which bail once granted
to an accused can be cancelled, which has been enumerated in the foregoing
paragraphs of this judgment; illustratively though not exhaustively.
10. In view of Section 22 (3) of the Mediation Act, 2023, it is a mandate of law
that any information or communication set forth in any mediation proceeding
shall not be introduced as evidence before any court and tribunal and no court
and tribunal shall take cognizance of such information or evidence.
11. Under such circumstances, this Court has no hesitation in holding that
the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-XV, Ranchi has committed a
grave illegality by cancelling the bail granted to the petitioner for the sole
reason that the terms and conditions arrived at in the mediation, has not been
adhered to by the petitioner.
12. Accordingly, the order dated 27.01.2024 passed by the learned
Additional Judicial Commissioner-XV, Ranchi in Criminal Miscellaneous Case
No.78 of 2023 arising out of A.B.P. No.1341 of 2021, being not sustainable in
law, is quashed and set aside and the bail granted to the petitioner in
connection with Namkum P.S. Case No.29 of 2021, is restored.
13. In the result, this Cr.M.P. is allowed.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)
High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi
Dated the 05th of May, 2025
AFR/ Animesh
