ORDER : PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J. I.A. No. 3503 of 2022 1. I.A. No. 3503 of 2022 has been filed on behalf of legal heirs of petitioner no. 1 for intervention in the matter as petitioner no. 1 died during pendency of this criminal miscellaneous petition. 2. It appears that on the points raised by the petitioners and the issues involved in this case, there is no need to implead the interveners (legal heirs of deceased petitioner no. 1) and hear them in the matter. 3. Therefore, I.A. No. 3503 of 2022 stands disposed of. Cr. M.P. 1040 of 2019 4. The instant application has been filed for quashing the order dated 15.03.2019 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 56 of 2018, arising out of Sukhdeo Nagar (P) P.S. Case No. 21 of 2015, corresponding to G.R. case No. 5735 of 2015, related to ABP No. 1459/2015 & 1510/2015 passed by learned Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi, by which learned Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi has cancelled the Anticipatory Bail granted to the petitioners. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that petitioners were granted anticipatory bail vide common order dated 31.05.2017 passed by learned Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi in A.B.P. No. 1510 of 2015 and ABP No. 1459 of 2015 in connection with Sukhdeo Nagar P.S. Case No. 21 of 2015. 6. It is further submitted that as per FIR, allegation is that petitioners have sold some land to the informant party and there was some hurdle in the matter of mutation. Thereafter, present case was lodged for the offences punishable under Sections 406/420/467/468/471/34 of the Indian Penal Code . 7. It is further submitted that at the time of hearing of the anticipatory bail petition of the petitioners, the matter was sent to DLSA, Ranchi for mediation, which was settled and one of the terms and conditions of the settlement was that total consideration money of Rs. 54,50,000/- has to be returned at different stages and the accused persons has returned the partial amount of Rs. 25,00,000/- out of Rs. 54,50,000/- by way of bank draft / cheque / cash. Therefore, on the application of the informant for cancellation of bail of the accused persons, the impugned order was passed, which is absolutely illegal and not justified under law. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that during the pendency of this petition, petitioner no. 25,00,000/- out of Rs. 54,50,000/- by way of bank draft / cheque / cash. Therefore, on the application of the informant for cancellation of bail of the accused persons, the impugned order was passed, which is absolutely illegal and not justified under law. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that during the pendency of this petition, petitioner no. 1 namely, Smt. Fulwanti Devi @ Phulwanti Devi has died, hence, this petition stands abated, so far petitioner no.1 Smt. Fulwanti Devi @ Phulwanti Devi is concerned. 9. Considering the same, this petition stands abated so far petitioner no. 1 namely, Smt. Fulwanti Devi @ Phulwanti Devi. 10. Now the instant criminal miscellaneous survives with respect to petitioner no. 2 namely, Bablu Kumar Soni only. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner no. 2 has submitted that the petitioner no. 2 is enjoying bail since 2017 from the date of furnishing of bail bond and after two years, the impugned order was passed without recording any satisfaction of the Court about the reasonable grounds for cancellation of bail of the petitioners, who are all along on bail. There is no whisper in the impugned order that the petitioner was abusing the privilege of bail or otherwise tampering with the prosecution witnesses or evading his appearance in this case. The petitioner has been again booked in this case only for realization of money. Therefore, impugned order may kindly be set aside and petitioner no. 2 be directed to remain on bail upon the bail bond as already furnished in compliance of order dated 31.05.2017 passed in ABP No. 1510 of 2015 and ABP No. 1459 of 2015. 12. Learned APP appearing for the State has submitted that the petitioner has violated the condition of bail, hence, there is no illegality in the impugned order. 13. Heard the parties and gone through the records, it appears that the petitioner was granted anticipatory bail, when the parties were agreed to compromise on certain terms and conditions and upon the application of the O.P. No.2, the bail of the petitioner was cancelled on the ground that opposite parties have flouted the said settled agreement flagrantly, willfully and fraudulently. 14. 14. The co-ordinate bench of this Court in the case of Jyotshna Sharma @ Jyotsana Anand in Cr.M.P. No. 2499 of 2021 dated 01.04.2022 has held as:- Generally speaking the grounds for cancellation of bail broadly (illustrative and not exhaustive) are:- (i) Interference or attempt to interfere with the due course of administration of justice or, (ii) Evasion of attempt to evade the due course of justice or, (iii) Abuse of the concession granted to the accused in any manner. (iv) The satisfaction of the court, on the basis of material placed on the record of the possibility of the accused absconding is yet another reason justifying the cancellation of bail. However, bail once granted should not be canceled in a mechanical manner without considering whether any supervening circumstances have rendered it no longer conducive to a fair tail to allow the accused to retain his freedom by enjoying the concession of bail during the trial. 15. In the facts and circumstances of the case and law, as discussed above, the impugned order dated 15.03.2019 is quashed and set aside. 16. Accordingly, Cr.M.P. No. 1040 of 2019 stands allowed. 17. Pending I.As. stands disposed of.