Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 518 (JHR)

Chandra Kishore Paul v. State of Jharkhand

2017-03-16

RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY

body2017
ORDER : 1. Heard Mr. R. S. Mazumdar, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, Mr.S. K. Keshri, learned A.P.P. for the State and Mr. Binod Kumar Jha, learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2. 2. This application has been preferred for quashing of the order dated 21.11.2016 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Bokaro in Cr. Misc. Petition No. 02 of 2015, whereby and where under, the anticipatory bail granted to the petitioner in connection with Kasmar P.S. Case No. 86 of 2014 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 1219 of 2014 vide order dated 22.12.2014 passed in A.B.P. No. 658 of 2014, has been cancelled. 3. It has been submitted by learned senior counsel for the petitioner that conciliation was held in the Mediation Centre and pursuant to which a joint compromise petition was filed on the basis of which vide order dated 22.12.2014, the petitioner was granted anticipatory bail in connection with Kasmar P.S. Case No. 86 of 2014 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 1219 of 2014 vide order dated 22.12.2014 passed in A.B.P. No. 658 of 2014. It has also been stated that since the opposite party No. 2 did not cooperate with the petitioner to adhere to the terms and conditions of the compromise, an informatory petition was filed before the Court of learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro as also an application before the Officer-in-Charge, Kasmar Thana, bringing to the notice the circumstances which had occurred after the petitioner was granted anticipatory bail. Learned senior counsel further submits that if at all the bail was granted on compromise and if the terms of compromise were not fulfilled, the same cannot be a ground for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the petitioner, as the Court which had granted anticipatory bail cannot review its own order in view 2. of provision contained in Section 362 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Learned senior counsel has also referred to an order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Santosh Kumar v. State of Bihar and another reported in (2010) 15 SCC 357. 4. Mr. of provision contained in Section 362 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Learned senior counsel has also referred to an order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Santosh Kumar v. State of Bihar and another reported in (2010) 15 SCC 357. 4. Mr. B. K. Jha, learned counsel appearing for opposite party No. 2 referred to the impugned order dated 21.11.2016 and has submitted that the petitioner had initially agreed to compromise the matter and after being granted anticipatory bail, he has resiled from the said compromise which was entered into, as indicated in the impugned order. He further submits that since the compromise was the sole ground of consideration of the anticipatory bail to the petitioner, noncompliance with the terms and conciliations of the compromise had weighed in the mind of the court below while cancelling the anticipatory bail granted to the petitioner. It has also been stated by learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 that the court which grants anticipatory bail has also the power to cancel the said anticipatory bail and the learned court below had rightly on consideration of the fact that the petitioner did not abide by the terms and conditions of the compromise had passed the impugned order dated 21.11.2016 and there being no reason to interfere in the said order, this application is liable to be dismissed. 5. It appears that a case u/s 498A I.P.C. being Kasmar P.S. Case No. 86 of 2014 was instituted, in which the petitioner was arrayed an an accused being the husband of the opposite party No. 2. The institution of criminal case, led the petitioner to file an application for anticipatory bail before the Court of Sessions which was numbered as A.B.A. No. 658 of 2014 and during the pendency of the said application, the matter was reconciled between the parties and a joint compromise petition was filed before the learned court below which led the learned court below to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Immediately after the grant of anticipatory bail, an informatory petition was filed by the petitioner on 31.12.2014, which contains some assertion with respect to the acts of the opposite party No. 2 in frustrating the petitioner from adhering to the terms and conditions of the compromise petition. Immediately after the grant of anticipatory bail, an informatory petition was filed by the petitioner on 31.12.2014, which contains some assertion with respect to the acts of the opposite party No. 2 in frustrating the petitioner from adhering to the terms and conditions of the compromise petition. Not only the informatory petition was filed before the Court of learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro, an application by way of information was 3. also given to the Officer-in-Charge, Kasmar P.S. relating to certain incidents which had occurred after the petitioner was granted anticipatory bail. Subsequently however a miscellaneous petition was filed by the opposite party No. 2 which was registered as Cr. Misc. Petition No. 02 of 2015 in which vide order dated 21.11.2016, learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Bokaro was pleased to cancel the anticipatory bail granted to the petitioner earlier. 6. It appears from the impugned order dated 21.11.2016 that the personal appearance of the petitioner was also made, but he had flatly refused to comply with the conditions of the compromise. It appears from the impugned order that the grounds which had been taken by the petitioner with respect to his not being able to comply with the undertaking and the agreement entered into has not been considered by the learned court below, as the learned court below seems to have been swayed by the personal appearance of the petitioner, in which he had refused to comply with what had been agreed upon by him. The impugned order does not at all discuss the grounds which have been put forward by the petitioner towards disabling him to comply with the terms and conditions, as enumerated in the joint compromise petition. In the case of Santosh Kumar v. State of Bihar and another reported in (2010) 15 SCC 357 while considering a similar issue, the order of the High Court cancelling the bail granted to the said petitioner was set aside on the ground that sufficient reasons have been given by the petitioner for failure of attempts of reconciliation and merely because of subsequent reconciliation efforts, the petitioner failed to take back his wife, the same cannot give rise to an inference that he obtained the provisional bail by false and wrong submissions. The learned court below seems to have only considered the fact that the petitioner had obtained the anticipatory bail on a false pretext of compromise and that he did not have any intention to comply with the terms and conditions of the said compromise. The learned court below had failed to take into consideration its own order dated 22.12.2014, as apart from the compromise petition being one of the primary factors which led the learned court below to grant anticipatory bail, the facts and circumstances of the case were also taken into consideration as could be gathered form the last paragraph of the order dated 22.12.2014 4. passed in ABP No. 558 of 2014. Since the learned court below while passing the impugned order did not properly appreciate at all the grounds taken by the petitioner, the impugned order in absence of any cogent and justifiable reasons cannot be sustained in the eye of of law. 7. Accordingly in view of what has been discussed above, this application is allowed and the impugned order dated 21.11.2016 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Bokaro in Cr. Misc. Petition No. 02 of 2015, whereby and where under, the anticipatory bail granted to the petitioner in connection with Kasmar P.S. Case No. 86 of 2014 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 1219 of 2014 vide order dated 22.12.2014 passed in A.B.P. No. 658 of 2014, has been cancelled