JUDGMENT : (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) : Heard the parties. 2. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with a prayer to quash the order dated 13.04.2023 passed in Misc. Criminal Application No.337 of 2023 by which the learned Sessions Judge, Chatra has cancelled the bail granted to the petitioner vide order dated 15.02.2023 in B.P. No.84 of 2023. 3. Perusal of the record reveals that the petitioner was directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned court below and no other condition was imposed in the said bail order. It was alleged by the wife of the petitioner who was the informant of Chatra Mahila P.S. Case No.30 of 2022 in connection with which case the petitioner was granted bail by the said order, filed an application for cancellation of bail on the ground that the petitioner has failed to fulfill the condition in mediation and on that sole ground, the petition for cancellation of the bail was allowed by the learned Sessions Judge and the learned Sessions Judge, Chatra cancelled the bail granted to the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Biman Chatterjee vs. Sanchita Chatterjee & Another reported in AIR 2004 SC 1699 paragraph-7 of which reads as under:- “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 that 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. 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-fulfilment 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.” (Emphasis supplied) Submits that it is a settled principle of law that bail once granted cannot be cancelled on the ground that the accused has violated the terms of compromise. It is further submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are completely false and concocted. Learned counsel for the petitioner further relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Dolat Ram & Others vs. State of Haryana reported in (1995) 1 SCC 349 and submits that therein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has held that very cogent and overwhelming circumstances are necessary for cancellation of bail and bail once granted should not be cancelled in a mechanical manner and the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has laid down the broad grounds on which the bail can be cancelled. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner has no criminal antecedent. The petitioner has been in judicial custody since 13.04.2023. Hence, it is submitted that the said order dated 13.04.2023 passed in Misc. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner has no criminal antecedent. The petitioner has been in judicial custody since 13.04.2023. Hence, it is submitted that the said order dated 13.04.2023 passed in Misc. Criminal Application No.337 of 2023 by which the learned Sessions Judge, Chatra has cancelled the bail granted to the petitioner, be quashed and set aside. 6. The learned Spl.P.P. appearing for the State and the learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 vehemently oppose the prayer for quashing the order dated 13.04.2023 passed in Misc. Criminal Application No.337 of 2023 by which the learned Sessions Judge, Chatra has cancelled the bail granted to the petitioner and learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 submits that keeping in view of the conduct of the petitioner in solemnizing second marriage and going back from the commitment made by him at the time of mediation, the learned Sessions Judge, Chatra has rightly cancelled the bail granted to the petitioner. Hence, 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 the bail once granted cannot be cancelled on the ground that the accused has failed to comply with the terms of the compromise as has been held by 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 and 5 of which read 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. 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) 8. It is a settled principle of law that the bail once granted can ordinarily be cancelled on the following grounds illustratively though not exhaustively:- (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 indulges 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. 9. After carefully going through the materials available in the record, this Court is of the considered view that the learned Sessions Judge, Chatra has cancelled the bail granted to the petitioner only on the ground that he has not complied with the terms and conditions discussed at the time of mediation. 9. After carefully going through the materials available in the record, this Court is of the considered view that the learned Sessions Judge, Chatra has cancelled the bail granted to the petitioner only on the ground that he has not complied with the terms and conditions discussed at the time of mediation. It is a settled principle of law that proceedings before mediation are not to be taken note of in any judicial proceeding or else the very purpose of holding mediation where many concessions are made and discussed, will be frustrated; hence the parties will not be ready and willing to concede anything with the fear that the same may be utilised against him, in any judicial proceeding. There is no allegation against the petitioner of having committed any of the conditions as mentioned above in the foregoing paragraphs of this judgment being the grounds of cancellation of bail. 10. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the order dated 13.04.2023 passed in Misc. Criminal Application No.337 of 2023 by which the learned Sessions Judge, Chatra has cancelled the bail granted to the petitioner, is not sustainable in law and the continuation of the same will amount to abuse of process of law. Accordingly the same is quashed and set aside. 11. The petitioner, named above, is directed to be released on bail on furnishing fresh bail bond of Rs.25,000/- with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned trial court. 12. In the result, this Cr.M.P. stands allowed.