1. Sikandar Kumar Swarnkar, Son of Munna Swarnkar, aged about- 28 years, 2. Gayatri v. 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Aarti Kumari @ Aarti Devi, Wife of Sikandar
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No.1410 of 2023 ------ 1. Sikandar Kumar Swarnkar, Son of Munna Swarnkar, aged about- 28 years, 2. Gayatri Devi, Wife of Munna Swarnkar, aged about- 60 years, Both are resident of Simala, P.O. and P.S.- Palajoriya, District- Jamtara. … Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Aarti Kumari @ Aarti Devi, Wife of Sikandar Swarnkar, Daughter of- Ravi Swarnkar, Resident of village- Diwan Tola Road, Sonar Patti, P.O.- and P.S.- Pachamba, District- Giridih. … Opposite Parties ------ For the Petitioners For the State For the O.P. No.2
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Prabhat Kr. Sinha, Advocate Ms. Kumari Ranjna Singh, Advocate : Mr. Abhay Kr. Tiwari, Addl.P.P. : Mr. Shree Nivas Roy, Advocate ------ P R E S E N T 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 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with a prayer to quash the order dated 01.09.2022 passed in Misc. Case No.33 of 2022 by the learned Sessions Judge, Giridih whereby and where under the anticipatory bail granted to the petitioners vide order dated 04.02.2022 passed in A.B.P. No.1303 of 2021 has been cancelled and to allow the petitioners to remain with the same bail bond; in connection with Jamua P.S. Case No.241 of 1 Cr. M.P. No.1410 of 2023 2021 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 307, 504, 379, 34 of the Indian Penal Code inter alia against the petitioners. 3. The brief facts of the case is that the petitioners were given the privileges of anticipatory bail by the learned Sessions Judge, Giridih vide order dated 04.02.2022 passed in Anticipatory Bail Petition No.1303 of 2021 by the learned Sessions Judge, Giridih. In terms of the said order, the petitioners surrendered before the trial court on 16.02.2022 and their bail bond was accepted by the trial court on the same day in connection with Jamua P.S. Case No.241 of 2021 involving the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 307, 504, 379, 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The informant filed a petition before the learned Sessions Judge, Giridih with a prayer to cancel the bail granted to the petitioners in terms of the said A.B.P. No.1303 of 2021 dated 04.02.2022. The learned Sessions Judge, Giridih considered that during the hearing of A.B.P. No.1303 of 2021, the petitioners compromised the case and the petitioners were ready to keep the informant with full honour and dignity, hence, the petitioners were granted anticipatory bail but as the petitioners violated the terms and conditions of the compromise, the learned Sessions Judge, Giridih cancelled the anticipatory bail granted to the petitioners. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners relies upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Tanya Basu vs. State of Jharkhand & Another reported in 2023 SCC OnLine Jhar 3810 and submits that in that case, this Court also relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Biman Chatterjee vs. Sachita Chatterjee reported in (2004) 3 SCC 388, paragraph-07 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 2 Cr. M.P. No.1410 of 2023 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, nonfulfilment 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.” (Emphasis supplied) as also 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, paragraphs-4 and 5 of which are 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 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) 3 Cr. M.P. No.1410 of 2023 and held that solely on the ground that the terms of the compromise has not been complied with, the bail granted to the accused cannot be cancelled. Hence, it is submitted that the order dated 01.09.2022 passed in Misc. Case No.33 of 2022 by the learned Sessions Judge, Giridih, being not sustainable in law, be quashed and set aside. 6. Learned Addl.P.P. appearing for the State and the learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 have no serious objection to the prayer of the petitioners. 7. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Biman Chatterjee vs. Sachita Chatterjee (supra) and Pritpal Singh vs. State of Bihar (supra), it is a settled principle of law that solely on the ground that the terms of the compromise has not been complied with, the bail granted to the accused cannot be cancelled. 8. Now coming to the facts of the case, this Court after going through the materials available in the record finds that the learned Sessions Judge, Giridih has cancelled the bail granted to the petitioners only on the ground that they have not kept their promise made in the compromise basing upon which the petitioners were granted the privileges of anticipatory bail; even though the same was not a condition imposed in the anticipatory bail order. Hence, the bail granted to the petitioners has not been cancelled on merit. 9. Under such circumstances, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the learned Sessions Judge, Giridih has committed illegality in cancelling the anticipatory bail granted to the petitioners in terms of the A.B.P. No.1303 of 2021 dated 04.02.2022 in Misc. Case No.33 of 2022, in violation of the settled principle of law as discussed above in the foregoing paragraphs of this 4 Cr. M.P. No.1410 of 2023 judgement. Hence, the order dated 01.09.2022 passed in Misc. Case No.33 of 2022 by the learned Sessions Judge, Giridih, being not sustainable in law, is liable to be quashed and set aside. 10. Accordingly, the order dated 01.09.2022 passed in Misc. Case No.33 of 2022 by the learned Sessions Judge, Giridih, is quashed and set aside. 11. Bail granted to the petitioners vide order dated 16.02.2022 by the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Giridih in connection with Jamua P.S. Case No.241 of 2021 is restored. 12.
Decision
In the result, this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is allowed. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 09th of December, 2024 AFR/ Saroj 5 Cr. M.P. No.1410 of 2023