Breach Of Compromise Terms By Accused Is Insufficient To Justify Cancellation Of Bail: Jharkhand High Court

The Jharkhand High Court has held that the failure to comply with the terms of a compromise or a promise to make payment is not, by itself, a ground to cancel bail once granted.A Single Judge Bench of Justice Anil Kumar Choudhary was hearing a matter in which the petitioner sought to quash an order passed by the Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi, whereby the anticipatory bail granted to the petitioner had been cancelled.The petitioner had been granted the privilege of anticipatory bail vide an order dated 28.06.2022. However, vide the impugned order, the Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi, held that the petitioner had violated the agreement executed between him and Opposite Party No. 2, and on that sole ground, cancelled the anticipatory bail granted to the petitioner.The petitioner argued that the court below could not have cancelled the anticipatory bail solely on the ground that the petitioner had failed to honour his promise to make payment. On the other hand, the respondent submitted that since the petitioner had violated the conditions on the basis of which bail was granted, there was no illegality in the order passed by the Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi.The High Court held that it is a settled principle of law that mere non-compliance with the terms of a compromise or failure to fulfil a promise to make payment does not constitute a valid ground for cancellation of bail. On the facts of the case, the Court found that the sole ground on which the Judicial Commissioner had cancelled the petitioner's bail was the alleged violation of the settlement arrived at between the parties before the Mediation Centre.The Court referred to Section 22 of the Mediation Act, 2023, which provides for confidentiality, and held that the Act: “prohibits the parties to the mediation from relying on or introducing as evidence any information or communication relating to the acceptance of any proposal by any party or any other mediation communication, inter alia, in any court or in any proceeding.”In view of this, the Court held that the order passed by the Judicial Commissioner was unsustainable, set aside the impugned order, and restored the bail granted to the petitioner.Title: Shivnarayan Yadav v. State of Jharkhand and Anr.Case Number: Cr. M.P. No. 886 of 2024Appearance:Mr. Sudhanshu Shekhar and Mr. Prakash Kumar appeared for the Petitioner. Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Mr. Avilash Kumar, and Mr. Sahil appeared for the Respondents.Click Here To Read/Download Order

Breach Of Compromise Terms By Accused Is Insufficient To Justify Cancellation Of Bail: Jharkhand High Court

Rushil Batra

Tags