JUDGMENT : By the Court :- 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 30.06.2017 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, Ramgarh in Criminal Misc. Case No.10 of 2016 whereby and where under the learned court below cancelled the anticipatory bail granted to the petitioner vide order dated 01.08.2016 in connection with A.B.P. No.240 of 2016 arising out of Complaint Case No.1955 of 2015 registered for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Ramgarh. 3. The brief facts of the case is that petitioner is the husband of the opposite party No.2. The opposite party No.2 filed Complaint Case No.1955 of 2015 in which cognizance was taken against the petitioner. The petitioner vide order dated 01.08.2016 in A.B.P. No.240 of 2016, was given the privileges of anticipatory bail with a direction to surrender before the trial court within ten days; with the condition that the petitioner will visit his in-laws’ house on the second Saturday in the month of August, 2016 and take Vidaai of his wife. The petitioner complied the order of anticipatory bail and went to the house of his in-laws’ and took Vidaai of his wife and till Rakshabandhan, both the petitioner and opposite party No.2 lived peacefully in the house of the petitioner and thereafter some quarrel took place and subsequently the petitioner did not agree to reside with the opposite party No.2. The opposite party No.2 filed Criminal Misc. Case No.10 of 2016 with a prayer to cancel the bail granted to the petitioner wherein the petitioner of this Cr.M.P. contended that it is the opposite party No.2 of this Cr.M.P. who is not ready and willing to reside with the petitioner unless and until the petitioner takes a separate accommodation to which the petitioner was not agreeable thefore, subsequently, the petitioner and opposite party No.2 could not reside together. The learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, considered that since the anticipatory bail was granted to the petitioner consequent upon the compromise but now the petitioner is refusing to obey the terms and conditions of the compromise, hence, the anticipatory bail granted to the petitioner be cancelled and accordingly cancelled the same. 4. Mr. The learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, considered that since the anticipatory bail was granted to the petitioner consequent upon the compromise but now the petitioner is refusing to obey the terms and conditions of the compromise, hence, the anticipatory bail granted to the petitioner be cancelled and accordingly cancelled the same. 4. Mr. Indrajit Sinha-learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no condition in the anticipatory bail granted to the petitioner that the petitioner has to live with the opposite party No.2 at any point before by second Saturday of the month of August, 2016. It is next submitted that the undisputed fact remains that the petitioner went to his in-laws’ house as per the terms of the order by which anticipatory bail was granted to him, took his wife and along with his wife, the petitioner went to the court. It is next submitted that it is not a case of even the opposite party No.2 that the petitioner has violated any of the condition upon which anticipatory bail has been granted to the petitioner. Mr. Sinha relies upon the order dated 01.04.2022 passed in Cr.M.P. No.2499 of 2021 in the case of Jyotshna Sharma @ Jyotsana Anand vs. The State of Jharkhand & Others passed by this Court wherein this Court relied upon the judgment of 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 & 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. 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. 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) and submits that this Court in the said case of Jyotshna Sharma @ Jyotsana Anand vs. The State of Jharkhand & Others (supra) enumerated the following grounds illustratively though not exhaustively; where bail granted to an accused can be cancelled:- (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. and submits that there is neither any allegation against the petitioner of violating any terms and conditions of the bail nor the petitioner has committed any act, deed or thing which can even remotely be referred to the grounds for which the bail granted to an accused can be cancelled. Hence, it is submitted that the learned Additional Sessions Judge-III has committed a gross illegality by cancelling the anticipatory bail granted to the petitioner even without the petitioner having committed any of such violation. 5. Mr. Hence, it is submitted that the learned Additional Sessions Judge-III has committed a gross illegality by cancelling the anticipatory bail granted to the petitioner even without the petitioner having committed any of such violation. 5. Mr. Sinha next submits that the crux of the dispute between the petitioner and the opposite party No.2 is that the opposite party No.2 is not ready and willing to live in the village atmosphere of the petitioner and unnecessarily the complaint has been filed and the petitioner is being harassed by way of cancelling the bail granted to him. Hence, it is submitted that the order dated 30.06.2017 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, Ramgarh in Criminal Misc. Case No.10 of 2016 be quashed. 6. Learned Addl.P.P. appearing for the State, on the other hand opposes the prayer for quashing the order dated 30.06.2017 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, Ramgarh in Criminal Misc. Case No.10 of 2016 and submits that since the petitioner has violated the compromise entered into between the parties consequent upon which the said anticipatory bail granted was granted. Hence, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has rightly cancelled the bail of 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 in the order by which the anticipatory bail was granted to the petitioner, the only condition imposed upon the petitioner, was that the petitioner will visit his in-laws’ house on second Saturday of August, 2016 and take Vidaai of his wife. There is absolutely no other condition of bail. The perusal of the record reveals that there is no dispute that the petitioner visited his in-laws’ house or took Vidaai of his wife. As already indicated above, there is no allegation against the petitioner of having committed any of the acts, deed or thing which could be a ground for cancellation of the bail already granted to him as enumerated by this Court in its order in the case of Jyotshna Sharma @ Jyotsana Anand vs. The State of Jharkhand & Others (supra) as already indicated above. Bail once granted to an accused person cannot be cancelled unless he violates the condition of the bail or does any act, deed or thing to impede a fair trial of the case concerned. 8. Under such circumstances, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the learned Additional Sessions Judge-III has committed gross illegality by cancelling the anticipatory bail granted to the petitioner. Hence, the order dated 30.06.2017 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, Ramgarh in Criminal Misc. Case No.10 of 2016 is perverse and not sustainable in law and the continuance of the same will amount to abuse of process of the court. 9. Accordingly, the order dated 30.06.2017 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, Ramgarh in Criminal Misc. Case No.10 of 2016 is quashed and set aside and the bail order of the petitioner is restored. 10. In the result this Cr.M.P. stands allowed.