JUDGMENT : ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J. 1. Heard the parties. 2. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with a prayer for quashing the order dated 05.09.2022 passed in Cr. Misc. Case No. 57 of 2021 by which the learned Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi has cancelled the anticipatory bail granted to the petitioner vide A.B.P. No. 2129 of 2019 on the sole ground that the petitioner had failed to keep up his promise to repay Rs.8,00,000/- in terms of the settlement arrived at between the parties at the Mediation Center, Ranchi. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Biman Chatterjee vs. Sachita Chatterjee and Another, (2004) 3 SCC 388 , paragraph no. 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. 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. 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) And submits that the court below could not have cancelled the anticipatory bail solely on the ground that the petitioner has failed to keep up his promise to make payment of Rs.8,00,000/-. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner next relied upon the judgment of coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Amr Chouhan @ Amar Singh Chouhan vs. State of Jharkhand and Another, 2016 SCC Online Jhar 1018 dated 04.03.2016 whereby and where under, the coordinate Bench relying upon the said judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Biman Chatterjee vs. Sachita Chatterjee and Another (supra) has also opined that non-fulfillment of terms of compromise cannot be the basis of cancelling the bail. Hence, it is submitted that the order dated 05.09.2022 passed in Cr. Misc. Case No. 57 of 2021 be quashed and set aside. 5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 on the other hand opposes the prayer for quashing the order dated 05.09.2022 passed in Cr. Misc. Case No. 57 of 2021 and submits that the bail has been cancelled on merits and condition of repayment was part of the condition of bail hence, the same having been violated by the petitioner, the learned Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi has rightly cancelled the anticipatory bail granted to the petitioner. Hence, it is submitted that this criminal miscellaneous petition being without any merit be dismissed. 6. Hence, it is submitted that this criminal miscellaneous petition being without any merit be dismissed. 6. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through the materials in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that it is a settled principle of law as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Pritpal Singh vs. State of Bihar, 2001 SCC Online SC 123, paragraph nos. 4 and 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.” That solely on the ground that terms of compromise has not been complied with, bail granted to the accused cannot be cancelled. 7. 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.” That solely on the ground that terms of compromise has not been complied with, bail granted to the accused cannot be cancelled. 7. Now coming to the facts of the case, after carefully going through the materials in the record, this Court finds that though it has been mentioned by the learned Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi that the anticipatory bail granted is cancelled on merits but in no uncertain manner the reason for cancellation of the bail is that the violation of the condition of repayment of Rs.8,00,000/- in 16 installment by the petitioner to the informant. 8. Under such circumstances, this Court has no hesitation in holding that in view of the settled principle of law, the learned Judicial Commissioner has committed an illegality in cancelling the anticipatory bail granted to the petitioner vide order dated 01.10.2020 and it is apparent that in terms of the said anticipatory bail, the petitioner surrender before the court concern and was released on bail on furnishing bail bond by the trial court. Hence, the order dated 05.09.2022 passed in Cr. Misc. Case No. 57 of 2021 being not sustainable in law is quashed and set aside and the bail of the petitioner granted to him is restored. 9. In the result, this criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed.