Bail Once Granted To Accused Can't Be Cancelled Unless He Violates Bail Conditions Or Impedes Fair Trial: Jharkhand High Court

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

Justice Anil Kumar Choudhary, observed, “there is no allegation against the petitioner having committed any of the acts, deeds or things which could be a ground for cancellation of bail already granted to him as enumerated by this Court in the case of Jyotshna Sharma @ Jyotsana Anand vs. The State of Jharkhand & Others (supra). Bail once granted to an accused person cannot be cancelled unless he violates the condition of the bail or does any act, deed or thing to impede a fair trial of the case concerned. It is needless to mention that the petitioner seeks cancellation of the bail of the opposite party No.2 on the sole ground that he has failed to comply with the terms and conditions of the agreement entered into between the parties.”

As per the factual matrix of the case, the opposite party No. 2 was granted bail based on a compromise between the parties, without any stipulation in the bail order regarding the cancellation of bail if the accused fails to adhere to the terms of the agreement. Subsequently, a petition was moved seeking the cancellation of bail, which was rejected by the magistrate. This decision was then challenged through a criminal revision, which was ultimately dismissed. The instant petition was filed under Section 439(2) CrPC, seeking to overturn the order issued by the learned Sessions Judge.

The Petitioner argued that Opposite Party No.2 had declined to allow the Petitioner back into the matrimonial home, prompting a request for the cancellation of bail.

In response, the State argued that it is firmly established that mere non-compliance with the terms and conditions of a compromise cannot serve as grounds for bail cancellation.

Citing the case of Jyotshna Sharma @ Jyotsana Anand vs. The State of Jharkhand & Others (Cr.M.P. No.2499 of 2021), the State listed several illustrative, though not exhaustive, grounds for the cancellation of bail.

Based on this precedent, the counsel asserted that it is a well-established legal principle that mere noncompliance with the terms and conditions of a compromise cannot justify bail cancellation. Therefore, it was argued that the lower courts did not err in denying the petitioner's request to cancel the bail of Opposite Party No.2.

After hearing the rival submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going through the materials available in the record, the Court underscored, “it is pertinent to mention here that as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Pritpal Singh vs. State of Bihar (Supra), by now it is a settled principle of law that the bail granted to an accused cannot be cancelled solely on the ground that the terms of the compromise had not been complied with.”

“Under such circumstances, this Court has no hesitation on holding that the learned Sessions Judge, Jamshedpur has not committed any illegality in dismissing the Criminal Revision No.11 of 2022. Therefore, there is no justifiable reason for this Court to interfere with the said order,” the Court concluded while dismissing the Criminal Miscellaneous Petition.

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

LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 86

Click Here To Download Judgement