close
close

Bail once granted to an accused cannot be canceled unless he violates bail conditions or obstructs fair trial: Jharkhand High Court

In a recent judgment, the Jharkhand High Court stressed that bail granted to an accused cannot be canceled solely on the ground of non-compliance with the terms of the plea agreement. Justice Anil Kumar Choudhary, presiding over the case, reiterated that bail can only be revoked if the accused violates bail conditions or obstructs a fair trial.

Justice Anil Kumar Choudharyobserved, “there is no allegation against the petitioner that he has committed any act, deed or thing which could constitute a ground for cancellation of the bail granted to him as mentioned by this Court in the case of Jyotshna Sharma @ Jyotsana Anand v. State of Jharkhand and others (supra). Bail once granted to an accused cannot be revoked unless he violates the terms of the bail or engages in any action, act or thing that obstructs the fair trial of the case. It goes without saying that the petitioner prays for cancellation of the bond of opposite party No. 2 solely on the ground that he has not complied with the terms of the agreement entered into between the parties.”

As can be seen from the facts of the case, the opposite party No. 2 was granted bail based on the parties’ compromise, without any reservation in the order granting bail in the event of failure by the accused to comply with the terms of the agreement. An application to revoke the bail was then made, which was rejected by the magistrate. This decision was subsequently challenged in criminal proceedings, which were ultimately dismissed. This petition was submitted pursuant to Art. 439 section 2 CrPC and sought to set aside the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge.

The petitioner argued that the Opposite Party No. 2 refused to allow the petitioner back into the matrimonial home, which resulted in the application for cancellation of the bail bond.

In response, the State argued that it had been firmly established that mere failure to comply with the terms of the plea agreement could not constitute grounds for the cancellation of bail.

Citing a case Jyotshna Sharma @ Jyotsana Anand v. State of Jharkhand and others (Cr.MP No. 2499 of 2021)the state listed several illustrative, though not exhaustive, grounds for canceling bail.

Relying on this precedent, counsel argued that it is a well-established legal principle that mere failure to comply with the terms of a settlement cannot justify the cancellation of a bail bond. Accordingly, it was argued that the lower courts did not err in rejecting the petitioner’s application for cancellation of the bail bond of opposite party No. 2.

After hearing the competing submissions made at the bar and after carefully reviewing the materials available in the case file, the Court emphasized: “it is pertinent to mention here that as stated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Pritpal Singh v. State of Bihar (supra), it is now settled principle of law that bail granted to an accused cannot be revoked merely on the ground that the terms of the plea agreement have not been complied with.”

“In such circumstances, the Court has no hesitation in holding that the learned Trial Judge Jamshedpur has not committed any illegality in dismissing Criminal Revision No. 11 of 2022. Therefore, there is no justifiable reason for the Court to interfere with the said order,” – stated the Tribunal, dismissing the lawsuit in a miscellaneous criminal case.

Case Title: Diksha Kumari @ Disksha Kumari V. State of Jharkhand

LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 86

Click here to download the judgment