JUDGMENT : ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J. I.A. No.4411 of 2025 and I.A. No.5073 of 2025 Heard the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner does not press I.A. No.4411 of 2025 and I.A. No.5073 of 2025. Accordingly, I.A. No.4411 of 2025 and I.A. No.5073 of 2025 stand rejected as not pressed. Cr.M.P. No.629 of 2025 This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 with a prayer to quash the order dated 27.01.2024 passed by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-XV, Ranchi in Criminal Miscellaneous Case No.78 of 2023 arising out of A.B.P. No.1341 of 2021 whereby and where under the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-XV, Ranchi has cancelled the bail granted to the petitioner in connection with Namkum P.S. Case No.29 of 2021 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 406, 468, 471, 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The brief facts of the case is that the petitioner is an accused person of the said Namkum P.S. Case No.29 of 2021 and he was granted the privileges of anticipatory bail vide order dated 06.07.2022 in A.B.P. No.1341 of 2021 on the basis of successful mediation and one of the condition of the mediation being that the petitioner will pay Rs.35,00,000/- in installments of Rs.5,00,000/- per month starting from May, 2022 and the entire installment amount was to be completed by October, 2022. There were several undertakings given in the Criminal Miscellaneous Case No.78 of 2023 which was filed by the opposite party No.1/informant for cancellation of the bail and the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that by now, the petitioner has already paid Rs.25,00,000/- which fact is also acknowledged by the learned counsel for the opposite party No.1. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Dharmendra Kumar Sao @ Dharmendra Kumar @ Dharmendra Saw vs. The State of Jharkhand & Another passed in Cr.M.P. No.1429 of 2021 dated 16th February, 2024 and submits that this Court considering the principle of law settled 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. 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) set aside the order by which bail of the accused person was cancelled by the trial court for not adhering to the terms of compromise. 4. The bail order is restored. The appeal is allowed.” (Emphasis supplied) set aside the order by which bail of the accused person was cancelled by the trial court for not adhering to the terms of compromise. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further relies upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Jyotshna Sharma @ Jyotsana Anand vs. The State of Jharkhand & Others passed in Cr.M.P No.2499 of 2021 dated 01.04.2022 and submits that therein this Court enumerated the following grounds illustratively though not exhaustively; where bail granted to an accused person 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 set aside the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jamshedpur by which the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jamshedpur cancelled the bail granted to the petitioner of that case consequent upon the petitioner of that case failing to comply with the terms of compromise. 5. In this respect, learned counsel for the petitioner also relies upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Diksha Kumari @ Disksha Kumari vs. The State of Jharkhand & Another reported in Cr.M.P. No.1939 of 2022 dated 24th of April, 2024. It is then submitted that the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-XV, Ranchi having cancelled the bail granted to the petitioner solely for the reason that the terms and conditions of the mediation is not complied with; the prayer as prayed for in the instant Cr.M.P., be allowed. 6. Learned Addl.P.P. appearing for the State and the learned counsel for the opposite party No.1 vehemently oppose the prayer of the petitioner made in the instant Cr.M.P. and submit that the petitioner has deliberately violated the terms and conditions of the mediation and undertaking given by him before the Court. Hence, it is submitted that the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-XV, Ranchi 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. Hence, it is submitted that the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-XV, Ranchi 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 Section 22 of the Mediation Act, 2023 which reads as under:- 22 . Confidentiality .- (1) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the mediator, mediation service provider, the parties and participants in the mediation shall keep confidential all the following matters relating to the mediation proceedings, namely:— (i) acknowledgements, opinions, suggestions, promises, proposals, apologies and admissions made during the mediation; (ii) acceptance of, or willingness to, accept proposals made or exchanged in the mediation; (iii) documents prepared solely for the conduct of mediation or in relation thereto; (iv) any other mediation communication. (2) No audio or video recording of the mediation proceedings shall be made or maintained by the parties or the participants including the mediator and mediation service provider, whether conducted in person or online to ensure confidentiality of the conduct of mediation proceedings. (3) No party to the mediation shall in any proceeding before a court or tribunal including arbitral tribunal, rely on or introduce as evidence any information or communication set forth in clauses (i) to (iv) of sub-section (1), including any information in electronic form, or verbal communication and the court or tribunal including arbitral tribunal shall not take cognizance of such information or evidence. (4) The provisions of this section shall not prevent the mediator from compiling or disclosing general information concerning matters that have been subject of mediation, for research, reporting or training purposes, if the information does not expressly or indirectly identify a party or participants or the specific disputes in the mediation.” A plain reading of Section 22 (3) of the Mediation Act, 2023 will reveal that Section 22 (3) of the Mediation Act, 2023 envisages that no party to the mediation shall in any proceeding before a court or tribunal, rely on or introduce as evidence any information or communication set forth inter alia acknowledgment made during the mediation, acceptance or willingness made in the mediation or any other mediation proceeding. 8. 8. It is also 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 (supra) that the cancelling of bail granted to an accused in a case solely on the ground that the terms of the compromise, has not been complied with, is untenable. 9. Now, coming to the facts of the case, there is no allegation against the petitioner of having committed any of the grounds for which bail once granted to an accused can be cancelled, which has been enumerated in the foregoing paragraphs of this judgment; illustratively though not exhaustively. 10. In view of Section 22 (3) of the Mediation Act, 2023, it is a mandate of law that any information or communication set forth in any mediation proceeding shall not be introduced as evidence before any court and tribunal and no court and tribunal shall take cognizance of such information or evidence. 11. Under such circumstances, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-XV, Ranchi has committed a grave illegality by cancelling the bail granted to the petitioner for the sole reason that the terms and conditions arrived at in the mediation, has not been adhered to by the petitioner. 12. Accordingly, the order dated 27.01.2024 passed by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-XV, Ranchi in Criminal Miscellaneous Case No.78 of 2023 arising out of A.B.P. No.1341 of 2021, being not sustainable in law, is quashed and set aside and the bail granted to the petitioner in connection with Namkum P.S. Case No.29 of 2021, is restored. 13. In the result, this Cr.M.P. is allowed.