ANAND KUMAR MEHTA vs STATE OF JHARKHAND
- Court
- Jharkhand High Court
( 2026:JHHC:32372 )
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No.2110 of 2026
------
Anand Kumar Mehta, aged about 42 years, S/o Balram Mahto, R/o-
Village-Uchari, P.O. & P.S.-Garhwa, District-Garhwa, Jharkhand.
… Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Awdhesh Kumar, S/o Bigan Ram, R/o Village-Sirhe, P.O.-
Nawada, P.S.-Meral, District-Garhwa, Jharkhand.
…
Opposite Parties
------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Rahul Pandey, Advocate
: Ms. Kaushiki Mishra, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Subodh Kr. Dubey, Addl.P.P.
For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Sabyasanchi, Advocate
------
P R E S E N T
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
I.A. No.15615 of 2026
Heard the parties.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this interlocutory
application has been filed with the prayer for early hearing of the instant
Cr.M.P.
Since, the hearing of instant Cr.M.P. is taken up today, hence, this
interlocutory application stands disposed of being infructuous.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J . )
Cr.M.P. No.2110 of 2026
By the Court:- Heard the parties.
2. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the
jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 with the
1
Cr. M.P. No.2110 of 2026
( 2026:JHHC:32372 )
prayer to quash and set aside the order dated 13.05.2026 passed in
Criminal Revision No.13 of 2026 by learned Sessions Judge, Garhwa
whereby and where under the learned Sessions Judge, Garhwa dismissed
the criminal revision petition filed by the petitioner challenging the order
dated 17.12.2025 passed by the learned SDJM, Garhwa in Meral P.S. Case
No.161 of 2024 whereby and whereunder the learned SDJM, Garhwa
cancelled the bail of the petitioner and also to quash the order dated
17.12.2025 passed by the learned SDJM, Garhwa in Meral P.S. Case
No.161 of 2024.
3. The brief facts of the case is that the petitioner was granted
anticipatory bail by the learned Sessions Judge, Garhwa by holding that
in the event of the arrest of the petitioner by police or surrender before the
court concerned within 15 days from the date of the order i.e. 04.12.2024,
the petitioner shall be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of
Rs.20,000/- with two sureties and the petitioner will comply with the
terms and conditions of the mediation. The said anticipatory bail order
was passed consequent upon amicable settlement between the parties in
course of mediation and after mediation, a mediation settlement
agreement was prepared. The petitioner during the mediation
proceedings agreed to pay Rs.10,27,000/- to the informant by two
cheques of Rs.5,13,500/- each. The petitioner issued cheque of
Rs.5,13,500/- on 03.06.2025 in favour of the informant, but the said cheque
was dishonoured because of insufficiency of funds and in spite of
demand notice for payment of the cheque amount was served upon the
2
Cr. M.P. No.2110 of 2026
( 2026:JHHC:32372 )
petitioners, still the petitioner did not pay the said amount, so alleging
that the petitioner has violated the condition of the bail, the petition for
cancellation of the bail was filed. The learned SDJM, Garhwa considered
that the settled principle of law that ordinarily, there cannot be automatic
cancellation of bail when there is non-fulfilment of terms of settlement
agreement by the accused and in this respect, referred to the judgment of
the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Biman Chatterjee vs.
Sanchita Chatterjee reported in (2004) 3 SCC 388 , and considering that
the accused had himself offered to pay the settlement amount of
Rs.10,27,000/- to the informant for the privilege of anticipatory bail being
granted to him, he cannot be allowed to take advantage of his own failure
to comply with the terms of settlement and escape from his liability and
went on to cancel the bail of the petitioner and ordered for issuance of
NBW against the petitioner. Being aggrieved by the said order, the
petitioner filed Criminal Revision No.13 of 2026 in the Court of learned
Sessions Judge, Garhwa and vide order dated 13.05.2026, the learned
Sessions Judge, Garhwa held that since the Hon’ble Supreme Court of
Karnataka vs. Vinay Rajshekharappa
India in the case of State of
Kulkarni reported in (2025) Live Law SC 669 has held that if there was a
violation of bail conditions even the trial court can cancel the bail granted
by the High Court or Supreme Court and as per the copy of the mediation
report, the parties agreed to settle the dispute for Rs.10,27,000/- and
according to the Section 482(2) of the BNSS, 2023, the Court has been
authorized to impose conditions, the order granting bail imposing the
3
Cr. M.P. No.2110 of 2026
( 2026:JHHC:32372 )
condition of payment of the said amount is in order and without finding
any illegality in the order impugned before it, dismissed the criminal
revision.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment of this
Jyotshna Sharma @ Jyotsana Anand vs. The State of
Court in the case of
Jharkhand and Others reported in 2022:JHHC:12333 and submits that, in
that case, this Court relied upon 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 & 5 of which reads 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)
Wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India considering that the
Magistrate cancelled the bail granted to the appellant before the Hon’ble
4
Cr. M.P. No.2110 of 2026
( 2026:JHHC:32372 )
Supreme Court of India solely on the ground that the terms of the
compromise had not been complied with and went on to observe that the
ground on which the petition for cancellation of bail was made, was
wholly untenable and this Court, in that case, laid down the following
grounds for cancellation of bail, broadly (illustrative and not exhaustive)
are as under:-
(i) by indulging in similar criminal activity,
(ii) interfering with the course of investigation,
(iii) attempted to tamper with evidence or witnesses,
(iv) threaten witnesses or indulge in similar activities which would
hamper smooth investigation,
(v) there is likelihood of their fleeing to another country,
(vi) attempted to make themselves scarce by going underground or
becoming unavailable to the investigating agency,
(vii) attempted to place themselves beyond the reach of his surety, etc.
and also went on to hold that the bail once granted should not be
cancelled in a mechanical manner 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. Learned counsel for the petitioner next submits that both the courts
below have passed the impugned orders by throwing the principle of law
to woods and also bypassing the mandate of Section 22(3) of the
Mediation Act, which prohibits proceedings of mediation from being
5
Cr. M.P. No.2110 of 2026
( 2026:JHHC:32372 )
used in any Court of law. It is lastly submitted that the prayer, as prayed
for in the instant Cr.M.P, be allowed.
6. Learned Addl.P.P. appearing for the State and the learned counsel
for the opposite party No.2 on the other hand vehemently oppose the
prayer of the petitioner made in the instant Cr.M.P and submit that no
illegality has been committed by both the courts below and since the
petitioner has not only failed to honour his promise to pay Rs.10,27,000/-,
but also issued a cheque which was dishonoured and the bail was never
granted on merit, but was granted on compromise, hence, the bail granted
to the petitioner has rightly been cancelled. Therefore, it is submitted that
this Cr.M.P., being without any merit, be dismissed.
7. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after
carefully going through the materials available in the record, it is
pertinent to mention here that it is a settled principle of law that in the
anticipatory bail was granted to the petitioner with, the only condition
imposed was that the petitioner has to furnish bail bond of Rs.20,000/-
with two sureties and to comply with the terms and conditions of the
mediation.
8. Now coming to the facts of the case, the bail granted to the
petitioner was cancelled solely on the ground that the terms of
compromise have not been complied. As has been held by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India in the case of Pritpal Singh vs. State of Bihar
(supra), such a ground for cancellation of bail, has been held to be wholly
untenable.
6
Cr. M.P. No.2110 of 2026
( 2026:JHHC:32372 )
9. Under such circumstances, this Court, in view of the settled
principle of law in the case of Pritpal Singh vs. State of Bihar (supra), has
no hesitation in holding that the learned SDJM, Garhwa in order dated
17.12.2025 passed in Meral P.S. Case No.161 of 2024 has committed a
grave illegality by cancelling the bail granted to the petitioner in terms of
the order dated 04.12.2024 in A.B.P. No.1019 of 2024 solely on the ground
that the terms of compromise had not been complied with and the learned
Sessions Judge, Garhwa has also committed a grave illegality by
upholding such an illegal order by his order dated 13.05.2026 passed in
Criminal Revision No.13 of 2026.
10. Accordingly, both the order dated 13.05.2026 passed in Criminal
Revision No.13 of 2026 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Garhwa and
the order dated 17.12.2025 passed in Meral P.S. Case No.161 of 2024 by the
learned SDJM, Garhwa respectively is quashed and set aside and the bail
of the petitioner in connection with Meral P.S. Case No.161 of 2024 is
restored.
11. In the result, this Cr.M.P., is allowed to the aforesaid extent only.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J . )
High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi
th
Dated the 04 of November, 2026
AFR/ Abhiraj
Uploaded on 05/11/2026
7
Cr. M.P. No.2110 of 2026