Jharkhand High Court
Chhita Tudu vs The State Of Jharkhand on 13 June, 2025
2025:JHHC:15443
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No.1181 of 2025
------
Chhita Tudu, W/o Amit Mardi, R/o village-Bishrampur, P.O.-
Jholak, P.S.-Rajnagar, District-Seraikella (Kharsawan)
…. …. …. Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Amit Mardi, S/o Ananto Mardi, R/o village-Chhota Dawna, P.O.-
Tabalpur, P.S.-Seraikella, District-Seraikella (Kharsawan)
…. …. …. Opposite Parties
——
Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
——
For the Petitioner : Ms. Vinita Prakash, Advocate
: Mr. Rohit Agarwal, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Pankaj Kumar Mishra, A.P.P.
——
02 Dated- 13th June, 2025
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The present criminal miscellaneous petitioner has been filed
under section 438(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita,
2023 for cancellation of anticipatory bail of opposite party No.2
herein granted by this Court vide order dated 19.09.2022 in A.B.A.
No.3884 of 2022.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the
opposite party No.2 herein has been granted bail by this Court
vide order dated 19.09.2022 in A.B.A. No.3884 of 2022 subject to
settlement between the parties before Mediation Center at
JHALSA on certain terms and conditions. It is further submitted
that the opposite party No.2 herein violating the terms and
conditions as agreed between the parties before Mediation Center
at JHALSA, therefore his anticipatory bail is liable to be cancelled.
4. Mr. Pankaj Kumar Mishra, learned A.P.P. has submitted
that bail once granted cannot be cancelled without considering
whether any supervening circumstances have rendered it no
longer conducive to a fair trial to allow the accused to retain his
freedom by enjoying the concession of bail during the trial.
5. It appears that conditions arrived at between parties as a
matter of settlement were beneficial in nature to individual party
having so immense with conditions of bail for the purpose of fair
trial of the case. The aggrieved party may take remedies
prescribed under law. The violation of terms and condition as
2025:JHHC:15443
agreed between the parties before Mediation Center, as pointed
out by learned counsel for the petitioner as passed in earlier order
granting bail, cannot be considered as conditions of bail.
As Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Biman Chatterjee v. Sanchita
Chatterjee, (2004) 3 SCC 388 has observed 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.”
6. Considering the above, this Cr.M.P. stands dismissed.
(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)
Arpit/