Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 26

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

CRL. MISC. –(C) No. ________ OF 2019

In the matter of

SUNIL JOSAN AND OTHERS ...PETITIONERS

VERSUS

STATE AND ANOTHER …RESPONDENTS

INDEX

S. No. PARTICULARS PAGE


NO.
1. Urgent Application
2. Notice of Motion
3. List of Dates and Events
4. Memo of Parties

5. Petition for Setting aside of order dated 18-


03-2019, passed by Sh. Chandra Shekhar,
Additional District and Sessions Judge,
Dwarka, New Delhi” in Bail Matter No. BM
1268/2019, in FIR No. 75/2018, U/ss 420,
34 IPC registered at Bhai Hari Dass Nagar,
titled as State versus Sunil Josan.

6. Annexure- 1
True typed copy of order dated 18-03-2019
7. Annexure- 2
Licence in the name of petitioner no. 3
Shamer Chand

8. Annexure- 3
Copy of FIR No. 75/2018, registered at Police
Station Baba Haridas Nagar

8. Annexure- 4
Compromise dated 28-07-2018 between the
parties

9. Annexure- 5
Letter dated 09-01-2019, written to
complainant/respondent no. 2
10. Application for exemption from filing certified
copies of the Annexures
11. Application for staying operation of order date
18-03-2019

Filed by

___________

ADVOCATE

NEW DELHI

DATED:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

CRL. MISC. –(C) No. ________ OF 2019

In the matter of

SUNIL JOSAN AND OTHERS ...PETITIONERS

VERSUS

STATE AND ANOTHER …RESPONDENTS

NOTICE OF MOTION

To,

The Standing Counsel,


State (Govt. of NCT)
Delhi High Court,
New Delhi-110 003.
Sir,

Please find enclosed herewith a complete set(s) of Crl. Misc.

(C) being filed on behalf of the petitioners in the above stated matter,

which is likely to be listed before the Hon’ble Court on or before

______May, 2019. Please acknowledge your presence.

Filed by

_________________

ADVOCATE

NEW DELHI

DATED:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

CRL. MISC. –(C) No. ________ OF 2019

In the matter of

SUNIL JOSAN AND OTHERS ...PETITIONERS

VERSUS

STATE AND ANOTHER …RESPONDENTS

URGENT APPLICATION

To,

The Registrar,
Delhi High Court,
New Delhi-110 003.
Sir,

Kindly treat the accompanying petition as urgent as per

Hon'ble High Court Rules. Urgent relief is prayed for:

i) quashing and setting aside order dated 18-03-2019, passed

by the Court of Sh. Chandra Shekhar, Additional District and

Sessions Judge, Dwarka, New Delhi” in Bail Matter No. BM

1268/2019, in FIR No. 75/2018, U/ss 420, 34 IPC registered at

Baba Hari Dass Nagar, titled as State versus Sunil Josan;

ii) stay of operation of order dated 18-03-2019.

Filed by

_________________

ADVOCATE

NEW DELHI

DATED:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

CRL. MISC. –(C) No. ________ OF 2019

MEMO OF PARTIES

In the matter of

SUNIL JOSAN AND OTHERS ...PETITIONERS


VERSUS
STATE AND ANOTHER …RESPONDENTS

ARISING OUT OF IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 18-03-2019, PASSED


BY THE COURT OF SH. CHANDRA SHEKHAR, ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, DWARKA, NEW DELHI, IN BAIL
MATTER NO. BM 1268/2019, IN FIR NO. 75/2018, U/SS 420/34 IPC,
POLICE STATION BABA HARI DASS NAGAR IN THE MATTER OF
STATE VERSUS SUNIL JOSAN.

IN THE MATTER OF

1. Sunil Josan son of Sh. Shamer Chand Josan, resident of Village Chak
Shotriya Bandiwala & Near D.A.V. College, Professor Colony, Jalalabad,
District Fazilka.
2. Anil Kumar son of Sh. Shamer Chand Josan, resident of Village Chak
Shotriya Bandiwala & Near D.A.V. College, Professor Colony, Jalalabad,
District Fazilka.
3. Shamer Chand Josan son of Sh. Sham Lal, resident of Village Chak
Shotriya Bandiwala & Near D.A.V. College, Professor Colony, Jalalabad,
District Fazilka.
…PETITIONERS
Versus

1. State through Standing Counsel (Criminal), Delhi High Court, New Delhi.

2. Parul Goel son of Sh. Roshan Lal Goel, A-60, Anaj Mandi, Najafgarh, New
Delhi.
…RESONDENTS.

_________________
ADVOCATE
NEW DELHI
DATED: _________
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

CRL. MISC. –(C) No. ________ OF 2019

In the matter of

SUNIL JOSAN AND OTHERS ...PETITIONERS


VERSUS
STATE AND ANOTHER …RESPONDENTS

SYNOPSIS

The petitioners have filed the instant petition for quashing/setting aside

order dated 18-03-2019, passed by the court of Sh. Chandra Shekhar,

Additional District and Sessions Judge, Dwarka, New Delhi, thereby,

cancelling regular bail granted to the petitioner Sunil Josan and

anticipatory bails granted to petitioners Anil Josan and Shamer Chand

Josan, vide order dated 28-07-2018, in FIR No. 75/2018, under Sections

420, 34 IPC, registered at Police Station Baba Hari Dass Nagar, on the

application moved by the complainant/respondent no. 2 Sh. Parul Goel,

under Section 439 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

In the first place, the dispute between the parties was, predominantly, civil

in nature, which was given a criminal tinge to put pressure on the

accused/petitioners to make the payment in an arm twisting manner.

Moreover, petitioners no. 1 and 2 are not even associated with the firm

M/s S.S. Exports and its business dealings in any manner whatsoever,

which is, infact, the proprietorship of petitioner no. 3 only. A false and

baseless FIR No. 75/2018, under Sections 420, 34 IPC, registered at

Police Station Baba Hari Dass Nagar, was registered against the

petitioners. Petitioner Sunil Josan was arrested by the police on 02-05-

2018. On 26-07-2018, an oral compromise was effected between the

parties and as a result of the compromise, petitioner no. 1 was released


on interim bail. The oral compromise was reduced into writing on 28-07-

2018, and petitioner no. 1 Sunil Josan was granted regular bail, whereas,

petitioners nos. 2 and 3, Anil Josan and Shamer Chand Josan,

respectively were granted anticipatory bails vide order dated 28-07-2018.

As per the compromise dated 28-07-2018, a sum of Rs. 1,55,00,000/- was

to be paid by the petitioners to the complainant/respondent no. 2. Out of

the total sum of Rs. 1,55,00,000/-, a sum of Rs. 97,00,000/- has already

been paid to the complainant/respondent no. 2 by the petitioners by

selling their agricultural land, but, due to the slump in the property market,

the petitioners were unable to sell more land and generate money to make

remaining payment to the complainant/respondent no. 2. However, the

petitioners requested the complainant to get sale deed of their land having

value equal to the remaining amount executed in their favour or an

agreement to sell of the land in their favour, till, the petitioners are able to

sell the land in market, so that the remaining payment of the

complainant/respondent no. 2 could be secured. But, the

complainant/respondent no. 2, instead, moved an application under

Section 439 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for cancellation of bails

of the petitioners, which have been cancelled vide order under challenge

dated 18-03-2019.

LIST OF DATES

13-04-2018 First Information Report No. 75 was registered against

the petitioners, under Section 420, 34 IPC, at Police

Station Baba Hari Dass Nagar.

02-05-2018 Petitioner Sunil Josan was arrested.

21-06-2018 Petitioner Sunil Josan was granted interim regular bail.

26-07-2018 Oral compromise was effected between the parties.


28-07-2018 Written compromise was effected between the parties.

28-07-2018 Petitioner Sunil Josan was granted regular bail and

petitioners Anil Josan and Shamer Chand Josan were

granted anticipatory bails.

18-03-2019 Bails of the petitioners were cancelled.

_________ Hence, the present petition.


IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

CRL. MISC. –(C) No. ________ OF 2019

In the matter of

SUNIL JOSAN AND OTHERS ...PETITIONERS


VERSUS
STATE AND ANOTHER …RESPONDENTS

PETITION UNDER SECTION 482 CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE


FOR QUASHING/SETTING ASIDE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 18-03-
2019, PASSED BY THE COURT OF SH. CHANDRA SHEKHAR,
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, DWARKA, NEW
DELHI, IN BAIL MATTER NO. BM 1268/2019, IN FIR NO. 75/2018, U/SS
420/34 IPC, POLICE STATION BABA HARI DASS NAGAR IN THE
MATTER OF STATE VERSUS SUNIL JOSAN, VIDE WHICH BAILS OF
THE PETITIONERS HAVE BEEN CANCELLED UNDER SECTION 439
(2) OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE.

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH: -

1. That the present petition is being filed for quashing/setting aside of

order dated 18-03-2019, passed by the court of Sh. Chandra Shekhar,

Additional Sessions Judge, Dwarka, New Delhi, which has been passed in

violation and utter disregard of the legal provisions guiding bails as

envisaged in Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and as laid down by the

Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in a catena of judgments. Copy of

impugned order dated 18-03-2019, is annexed herewith as Annexure P-

1.

BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE AS UNDER: -

2. That petitioner No. 3 is the proprietor of firm M/s S.S. Exports,

situated at Jalalabad (Punjab), which dealt in Rice and Paddy. True

translation of Licence is annexed herewith as Annexure P-2. Petitioners

no. 1 and 2 are the sons of petitioner no. 3 and had their separate
business and have no link with the firm M/s S.S. Exports and its affairs

and business dealings. The complainant/respondent no. 2 is also

engaged in the business of Rice and Paddy and was having business

dealings with the firm of petitioner no. 3.

3. That during the course of the business, rice/paddy was

supplied to the firm of petitioner no. 3. A part payment of Rs. 30 lakhs

was made to the complainant/respondent no. 2. However, due to slump in

the rice business in Punjab, the firm of petitioner no. 3 suffered heavy

financial losses and was unable to make the remaining payment of

complainant/respondent no. 2. However, petitioner no. 3 requested

complainant/respondent no. 2, to take his agricultural land in lieu of the

remaining payment, but, the complainant/respondent no. 2 was adamant

to take cash payment only. Since, petitioner no. 3 was not in a position to

make cash payment, due to his failure in making cash payment,

complainant/respondent no. 2 got registered the aforesaid F.I.R.

Annexure P-3 against all the petitioners, whereas, petitioner no. 1 and 2

were not even associated with the business of petitioner no. 3.

4. That after registration of the F.I.R., petitioner no. 1 was

arrested by the police on 02-05-2018 and he remained in judicial custody

till 21-06-2018.

5. That on 21-06-2018, an oral compromise was effected

between the parties and petitioner no. 1 was released on interim regular

bail, on part payment of Rs. 15 lac. An amount of Rs. 20 lac was paid on

24-07-2018. The compromise was reduced into writing on 26-07-2018,

and it was settled that the remaining amount of Rs. 1.20 crores will be

paid by way of four cheques of Rs. 30 lac each. Two cheques totaling Rs.

60 lac were honoured and Rs. 2 lac were deposited in the bank account of
the complainant on 11-02-2019. Thus, out of the total amount of Rs. 1.55

crores, a substantial amount of Rs. 97 lac stood paid to the complainant

till date. Compromise dated 26-07-2018 is annexed herewith as

Annexure P-4.

6. That due to slump in property market, the petitioners were

unable to sell their lands and arrange remaining payment. Petitioner no. 1

requested the complainant to cooperate with them and not to present the

remaining two cheques of Rs. 30 lac each and further requested to grant

3/4 months time to arrange for the remaining payment in cash. He also

requested that in the meantime, the complainant may get any agreement

to sell regarding their land in his favour in order to secure his payment. A

request letter dated 09-01-2019, Annexure -5, in this regard, was written

to the complainant. But, the complainant didn’t adhere to the genuine

requests of the petitioners and presented the cheques in bank, which

were dishonoured due to insufficiency of funds.

7. That after dishonour of the aforesaid two cheques, the

complainant moved an application before the court of the learned

Additional Sessions Judge, Dwarka, for cancellation of bails of the

petitioners and on his application, impugned order dated 18-03-2019,

Annexure P-1 was passed, thereby, cancelling their bails.

8. That the petitioners being aggrieved by the aforesaid order,

are challenging the same by way of this petition, on the following grounds

amongst others: -

GROUNDS

A. Because, the learned court of the Additional Sessions Judge,

Dwarka has not appreciated the law applicable to the facts of the present

case as well as the relevant provisions of Section 439(2) of the Code of


Criminal Procedure, in its true perspective, as no reasonable grounds

were made out to cancel the bails of the petitioners. The bails of the

petitioners have been cancelled in a mechanical manner. No show cause

notice or an opportunity of filing a reply was granted to the petitioners to

explain their position.

B. Because, compromise Annexure-4 is the result of coercion

and undue influence. It is pertinent to mention over here that at the time

of entering into the compromise, petitioner no. 1 Sunil Josan was in

judicial custody and the compromise was entered into on his behalf by

petitioner nos. 2 and 3. Even otherwise, petitioner no. 1 Sunil Josan was

not connected with the affairs of M/s S.S. Exports, which is the sole

proprietorship of petitioner no. 3. Infact, the judicial custody of petitioner

no. 1 Sunil Josan was used by the complainant/respondent no. 2 to

coerce the petitioners to enter into the aforesaid compromise. As such,

the compromise Annexure-4 is not free from coercion and undue

influence.

C. Because, irrespective of the circumstances, under which the

Compromise Annexure-4 was executed, the petitioners have done their

best to honour the said compromise. The intentions of the petitioners to

honour the compromise can well be gauged out from the fact that out of

the total amount of Rs. 1.55 crores, they have made payment of Rs. 97

lakhs. For the remaining payment, they are requesting the

complainant/respondent no. 2 to take their agricultural land, at least, till

the time, the petitioners are able to generate cash payment, but, the

complainant didn’t pay any heed to the genuine requests of the petitioners

and got their bails cancelled.


D. Because, the petitioners are not running away from their

liability and are still ready to honour the remaining part of the compromise,

but, due to the adverse circumstances, they are not able to make cash

payment as of now and are ready to execute sale deed of their agricultural

land in favour of the complainant till the time they are able to generate

cash payment.

E. Because, if, consequent to the cancellation of their bails,

petitioners are arrested and sent to custody, they will not be able to do

anything to make arrangement of cash payment to be made to the

complainant, therefore, causing arrest of the petitioners and sending them

behind the bars is not going to serve any purpose.

F. Because, it is the settled legal position that in case of


non-honouring of the compromise/conditions, the bail applications
should be decided on merits. The legal position as explained in
2001(4) AICLR 749 Pritpal Singh versus State of Bihar and Biman
Chatterjee V. Sanchita Chatterjee (2004) 3 SCC 388 have not been
taken into consideration. In Biman Chatterjee V. Sanchita
Chatterjee (2004) 3 SCC 388, it has been clearly held as under:
“Non-fulfillment 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.

G. Because, the order passed by the learned Additional

Sessions Judge, is wholly without jurisdiction and is liable to be set aside

on this ground alone.

9. That the petitioner has not filed any other similar petition

earlier, on the same subject matter either in this Hon'ble Court or the

Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.

PRAYER

It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly

be pleased to : -

a) set aside order dated 18-03-2019, passed by Sh. Chandra Shekhar,

Additional District and Sessions Judge, Dwarka, New Delhi, in in

Bail Matter No. BM 1268/2019, in FIR No. 75/2018, U/ss 420, 34

IPC registered at Baba Hari Dass Nagar, titled as State versus Sunil

Josan”, thereby, restoring the concessions of bails to the

petitioners;

b) Staying operation of order dated 18-03-2019;

c) Pass any other further order(s) which this Hon'ble Court may deem

fit and proper in these circumstances, in the interest of justice.

_________________
ADVOCATE
NEW DELHI
DATED: _________
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

CRL. M.A. of 2019

IN

CRL. MISC. –(MAIN) No. ________ OF 2019

In the matter of

SUNIL JOSAN AND OTHERS ...PETITIONERS


VERSUS
STATE AND ANOTHER …RESPONDENTS

APPLICATION FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING OF LEGIBLE

DOCUMENT/ANNEXURES/MARGIN/CERTIFIED COPIES.

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

1. That the accompanying petition Under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has

been filed by the petitioner and the contents of the same are not being

repeated herein for the sake of brevity and maybe read as part of this

application.

2. That the petitioner has filed the annexures/documents/order which

are either dim or illegible or uncertified, but, are true copies of their

original.

3. That petitioners seek exemption from filing the certified copies of

Annexures and pray that the aforesaid petition may be heard and decided

on the basis of the true copies of the documents filed by the petitioner.

PRAYER

It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly

be pleased to : -

a) exempt the petitioner from filing the certified copies of Anneuxres;

and
b) Pass any other further order(s) which this Hon'ble Court may deem

fit and proper in the interest of justice.

_________________
ADVOCATE
NEW DELHI
DATED: _________
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

CRL. MISC. –(C) No. ________ OF 2019

In the matter of

SUNIL JOSAN AND OTHERS ...PETITIONERS


VERSUS
STATE AND ANOTHER …RESPONDENTS

AFFIDAVIT

I, Sunil Josan son of Sh. Shamer Chand Josan, aged about 34 years,
Occupation Agriculturist, resident of Village Chak Shotrian Bandi
Wala Tehsil Jalalabad District Fazilka, at present Amritsar, do hereby
solemnly affirm and declare as under: -
1. That the deponent is the petitioner and is filing the
accompanying petition for quashing of order dated 18-03-2019, in this
Hon’ble Court. The deponent is well conversant with the facts of the
present case. The accompanying petition has been drafted on my
instructions and the contents of the petition have been read to me.
2. That the contents of the petition are true and correct to
my knowledge. No part of it is false and nothing material has been
kept concealed therein.
3. That the petitioner has not filed any such or similar
petition either in this Hon’ble Court or in the Hon’ble Supreme Court
of India.
4. That the annexure filed with the petition are true copies
of their respective originals.

Place: Amritsar Deponent


Dated:

VERIFICATION:

Verified that the contents of the above affidavit are true


and correct to my knowledge. No part of it is false and nothing
material has been kept concealed therein.

Place: Amritsar Deponent


Dated:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

CRL. MISC. –(C) No. ________ OF 2019

In the matter of

SUNIL JOSAN AND OTHERS ...PETITIONERS

VERSUS

STATE AND ANOTHER …RESPONDENTS

LIST OF JUDGMENTS

INDEX

S. No. PARTICULARS PAGE


NO.
1. (2004) 3 SCC 388
Biman Chatterjee V. Sanchita Chatterjee
2. 2001(4) AICLR 749
Pritpal Singh versus State of Bihar
3.
4.

5.

Filed by

___________

ADVOCATE

NEW DELHI

DATED:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
CRL. M.A. of 2019
IN
CRL. MISC. –(MAIN) No. ________ OF 2019

In the matter of

SUNIL JOSAN AND OTHERS ...PETITIONERS


VERSUS
STATE AND ANOTHER …RESPONDENTS

APPLICATION FOR STAYING OPERATION OF ORDER DATED 18-03-


2018

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

1. That the accompanying petition Under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has


been filed by the petitioner and the contents of the same are not being
repeated herein for the sake of brevity and maybe read as part of this
application.
2. That consequent to order dated 18-03-2019, the police is raiding
house of the petitioners/applicants and they apprehend their arrest any
moment. A good case is made out in favour of the petitioners. If, the
operation of impugned order dated 18-03-2019, is not stayed and
petitioners are arrested, this petition will become infructuous and
irreparable loss will case to the petitioners.
PRAYER

It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly
be pleased to : -
a) Stay the operation of impugned order date 18-03-2019

b) Pass any other further order(s) which this Hon'ble Court may deem
fit and proper in the interest of justice.

_________________
ADVOCATE
NEW DELHI
DATED: _________
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Before :- D.P. Mohapatra and Shivaraj V. Patil, JJ.

Criminal Appeal No. 592 of 2001 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 3994

of 2000). D/d. 27.4.2001.

Pritpal Singh - Appellant

Versus

The State of Bihar and Anr. - Respondents

ORDER

Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner. None appears for the
respondents despite service of notice.

2. Leave granted.

3. The accused in the complaint case No. C-373/98 pending in the


Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Daltonaganj, Bihar, has filed this
petition assailing the order passed by the Patna High Court on 28th
September, 2000 in Crl. Misc. No. 3065/2000. In that case the
appellant had challenged the order of the Magistrate cancelling the
bail granted to him.

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 with in the time stipulated, the petition for cancellation of bail
was filed. It is stated by learned Counsel for the appellant that neither
any averment was made in the petition about misuse of liberty
granted to the appellant nor any difficulty was 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 compelled
with. To say the least, the ground on which the petition for
cancellation for bail was made and was granted is wholly untenable. It
is in 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.

Appeal allowed.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Biman Chatterjee - Appellant

Versus

Sanchita Chatterjee and Another - Respondents

For the Appellant :- Ajit Kumar Sinha, Advocate.

For the Respondents :- S.B. Upadhayay, Ms. Kumud Lata Das, Anil
Kumar Jha, Advocates.

Criminal Procedure Code, Section 437 - Indian Penal Code,


Section 498A - Complaint case under Section 498A Indian Penal
Code - Magistrate taking cognizance - Accused surrendered but
granted bail on promise that he would compromise - No
compromise took place - Breach of promise is no ground to
cancel the bail under Criminal Procedure Code - Having granted
the bail , it was not open to Court to cancel the same on a
ground alien to the grounds mentioned for cancellation of bail in
the said provision of law.

[Para 7]

JUDGMENT

N. Santosh Hegde, J. - Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. Leave granted.

3. Pursuant to a criminal complaint filed by the respondent-wife herein

alleging offence punishable under Section 498A Indian Penal Code

against the appellant- husband herein being registered and

cognizance taken, the said appellant on 6th October, 1999

surrendered before the Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi in Complaint Case

No. 78 of 1999 and sought for grant of bail. On hearing both the sides

and noticing the fact that there was a possibility of compromise

between the parties, the appellant herein was released on bail by the

said Magistrate on his furnishing a bail bond for a sum of Rs. 5,000/-

with two sureties of the like amount each. On 13.1.2000, on an

application made by the respondent herein alleging that the appellant

is not cooperating in the compromise talk, the learned Magistrate


cancelled the bail. On a revision filed against the said cancellation of

bail by the appellant herein, the High Court of Judicature at Patna,

Ranchi Bench on 18.4.2000 allowed the revision. While doing so it

held that the court below was not justified in rejecting in cancelling the

bail on the ground that the revision petitioner has adopted an

indifferent attitude and was not taking any steps for normalising the

relationship as contended by the respondent herein. In the said

process, the High Court remanded the matter of the trial court to re-

heard the matter on merit.

4. After remand, on 30th July, 2001, the said Judicial Magistrate,

Ranchi rejected the petition filed by the respondent for cancellation of

bail holding that "therefore, it does not appear legally just to cancel

the bail of the accused on the ground that the accused is not

compromising". Being aggrieved by the said order the respondent

preferred a Criminal Misc. Petition before the High Court of Jharkhand

at Ranchi contending that the very basis of granting of bail to the

appellant was the compromise petition filed by him to keep the

respondent herein as his legally wedded wife at her matrimonial

home and since the appellant has failed to adhere to this term of the

compromise, the appellant has lost his right to continue on bail. Thus,

the High Court by the impugned order has allowed the said petition of

the respondent-wife holding, inter alia, that the appellant herein had

also not appeared before the High Court inspite of the service of

notice which showed that he is not willing to keep his wife in violation

of the terms and conditions of the compromise petition which,

according to the High Court, was the basis for the grant of bail by the

trial Court. In the said process, it set aside the order of the Judicial
Magistrate, Ranchi made on 30th of July, 2001 rejecting the prayer of

the respondent for cancellation of bail.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant herein contended that

the impugned order is based on factual inaccuracies as also contrary

to law. He submitted that the observation of the High Court that there

was a compromise between the parties which was reduced to writing

and under the terms and conditions of the said compromise the

appellant had agreed to keep his wife is wholly incorrect. He pointed

out from the records to the contrary and that there was no such

compromise arrived at between the parties. He pointed out that what

was submitted to the court was only that there were negotiations

going on for finalisation of the compromise. Therefore, the question of

the appellant contravening the terms of the compromise did not arise

at all. He also contended that assuming that there was any such

violation of the terms of the compromise that cannot be a ground for

cancelling the bail. He also submitted that the appellant was never

served any court notice of the petition filed by the respondent in the

High Court and the impugned order has wrongly noted that the

appellant had been served and he remained absent.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent, however,

contended that the very basis of the grant of bail originally was on an

assurance given by the appellant that he would compromise and

would keep his wife him and he having failed to fulfil the said promise

made to the court, the High Court was justified in cancelling the bail

because the foundation for the grant of bail was the promise made by

the appellant.
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

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 the 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 non- fulfillment 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. 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.

8. Therefore, in our opinion, the High Court has erred in passing the

impugned order.
9. For the reasons stated above, this appeal succeeds. The

impugned order of the High Court is set aside.

The appeal is allowed.

Appeal allowed.