Jharkhand HC Restores Bail After ₹5.13 Lakh Settlement Cheque Bounced, Saying Nonpayment Alone Could Not Justify Cancellation

The petitioner was granted anticipatory bail on 4 December 2024, subject to furnishing bail bonds and complying with the terms of a mediation settlement. Under that settlement, he agreed to pay the informant ₹10,27,000 in two cheques. One cheque for ₹5,13,500 was dishonoured for insufficiency of funds, and the petitioner did not pay the amount despite demand.

The SDJM cancelled bail and issued a non-bailable warrant, solely on the basis of non-compliance with the settlement. The Sessions Judge dismissed the petitioner’s revision, prompting this petition under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023.

Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023, was invoked as the High Court’s jurisdictional basis for the petition.

Applying Pritpal Singh v. State of Bihar, 2001 SCC OnLine SC 123, the Court held that cancellation of bail solely for failure to comply with compromise terms is untenable; bail should not be cancelled mechanically without a legally sufficient basis.

The Court also recounted the principle that cancellation may be warranted by supervening circumstances affecting a fair trial, such as similar criminal activity, interference with investigation, or tampering with or threatening witnesses.

The Court found that the SDJM cancelled bail solely because the petitioner had not honoured the settlement, and that the Sessions Judge upheld the cancellation on that basis.

Under Pritpal Singh, non-compliance with compromise terms alone is not a legally tenable ground for cancellation. As no other basis for cancellation was identified, the SDJM’s order was unlawful, and the Sessions Judge erred in affirming it.

It quashed the Sessions Judge’s order dated 13 May 2026 and the SDJM’s order dated 17 December 2025, restored the petitioner’s bail, and allowed the petition to that extent.