Bail once granted to the accused cannot be canceled unless he violates the bail conditions or obstructs a fair trial: Jharkhand High Court

In a recent ruling, the Jharkhand High Court emphasized that bail, once granted to an accused, cannot be canceled solely on the basis of non-compliance with the terms of a compromise agreement. Justice Anil Kumar Choudhary, who was presiding over the case, reiterated that bail can be revoked only if the accused violates the bail conditions or obstructs a fair trial.

Justice Anil Kumar Choudharyobserved, “There is no allegation against the petitioner having committed any of the acts, deeds or things which could constitute a ground for cancellation of the bail already granted to him as enumerated by this Court in the case of Jyotshna Sharma @ Jyotsana Anand v. State of Jharkhand and Others (supra). Bail once granted to an accused cannot be canceled unless he violates the conditions of bail or if he does any act, deed or thing which is likely to prevent a fair trial in the matter concerned It goes without saying that the petitioner seeks cancellation of the bail of opposite party no.2 on the sole ground that. he did not respect the terms and conditions of the agreement concluded between the parties.

As per the factual matrix of the case, Opposite Party No.2 was released on bail on the basis of a compromise between the parties, without any stipulation in the bail order regarding cancellation of the bail if the accused fails to comply with the terms of the agreement. . Subsequently, a petition was filed seeking cancellation of the bail, which was rejected by the magistrate. This decision was subsequently challenged by a criminal review, which was ultimately rejected. The present application has been filed under Section 439(2) of the CrPC, seeking to set aside the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge.

The petitioner argued that the opposite party no.2 had refused to allow him to return to the matrimonial home, which led to an application for cancellation of the bail bond.

In response, the State argued that it is firmly settled that mere failure to comply with the terms and conditions of a compromise cannot constitute grounds for cancellation of bail.

Citing the case of Jyotshna Sharma @ Jyotsana Anand v. State of Jharkhand and Others (Cr.MP No.2499 of 2021)The State listed several illustrative, but not exhaustive, reasons for forfeiting bond.

Relying on this precedent, the lawyer asserted that it is a well-established legal principle that mere non-compliance with the terms and conditions of a compromise cannot justify the cancellation of the release under bail. Therefore, it was submitted that the Courts below did not err in rejecting the application of the petitioner to cancel the bond of opposite party no.2.

After hearing the competing arguments presented to the Bar and after carefully reviewing the documents available in the file, the Court noted: “it is pertinent to mention here that as held by the Supreme Court of India in the case of Pritpal Singh v. State of Bihar (Supra), it is now a well-settled principle of law that release under Bail granted to an accused cannot be canceled solely because the terms of the compromise have not been respected.

“In such circumstances, this Court has no hesitation in concluding that the learned Sessions Judge, Jamshedpur has not committed any illegality in dismissing Criminal Revision No. 11 of 2022. Therefore, there is no justifiable reason for this Court to interfere with said review. order,” the Court concluded by rejecting the miscellaneous criminal request.

Case Title: Diksha Kumari @ Disksha Kumari V. The State of Jharkhand

Citation LL: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 86

Click here to download the judgment