Bail Cannot Be Cancelled Solely For Non-Compliance Of Agreement Entered Into Between Parties: Jharkhand HC
The Jharkhand High Court rejected a petition to cancel a bail order, observing that bail cannot be cancelled on the sole ground that the terms and conditions of the agreement entered into between the parties were not complied with.
The Bench upheld the decision of the trial court which denied the plea by the wife for cancellation of bail of her husband in a matrimonial dispute.
A Single Bench of Justice Anil Kumar Choudhary observed, “By now it is a settled principle of law that the bail granted to an accused cannot be cancelled solely on the ground that the terms of the compromise had not been complied with. As already indicated above there is no allegation against the petitioner having committed any of the acts, deeds or things which could be a ground for cancellation of bail already granted to him.”
Advocate Prachi Pradipti represented the petitioner, while Spl. P.P. Nehala Sharmin appeared for the opposite parties.
The petition was filed under Section 439(2) of the CrPC to set aside the order of the trial court which rejected the plea for the cancellation of bail. The parties had compromised based on which the husband was granted bail. However, the wife argued in her petition to cancel the husband’s bail that he failed to comply with the terms of the compromise, which should warrant the cancellation of his bail. The trial court found no misuse of liberty or any interference with the judicial process on the husband’s part that would justify such an action.
The High Court reiterated the settled principle of law that the bail granted to an accused cannot be cancelled solely on the ground that the terms of the compromise had not been complied with.
“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. It is needless to mention that the petitioner seeks cancellation of the bail of the opposite party No.2 on the sole ground that he has failed to comply with the terms and conditions of the agreement entered into between the parties,” the Bench remarked.
Consequently, the Court held that the trial court did not commit any illegality in dismissing the request for cancellation of bail. “Therefore, there is no justifiable reason for this Court to interfere with the said order,” the Court added.
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the petition.
Cause Title: D v. The State of Jharkhand & Anr.
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocate Prachi Pradipti
Opposite Parties: Spl. P.P. Nehala Sharmin; Advocates Sourav Kumar and P. S. Bajaj
