The High Court of Jharkhand has delivered a definitive ruling that anticipatory bail cannot be cancelled solely on the ground of non-compliance with terms of a mediation settlement. This judgment reinforces the principle that bail, governed by Chapter XXXIII of the CrPC, must be evaluated on grounds directly tied to the integrity of the criminal process - not private civil agreements.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Prosenjeet Ghosh, was granted anticipatory bail in connection with a criminal case arising from marital discord. As a condition of bail, the court imposed an obligation to pay Rs. 30,000 per month as maintenance to his wife and children, pursuant to a mediation settlement. When payments ceased after June 2021, the wife moved to cancel the bail, citing breach of this condition.
Procedural History
- March 2021: Anticipatory bail granted by Additional Sessions Judge-VII, Jamshedpur, subject to compliance with mediation terms.
- June 2021: Petitioner ceased monthly payments.
- January 2023: Additional Sessions Judge-IV cancelled the anticipatory bail solely on grounds of non-payment.
- 2023: Petitioner filed Cr.M.P. No. 1714 of 2023 under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of the cancellation order.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought restoration of his anticipatory bail, arguing that non-compliance with a mediation agreement is not a legally valid ground for bail cancellation under the CrPC.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether non-compliance with terms of a mediation settlement constitutes a valid ground for cancellation of anticipatory bail under Section 437 and Section 439 CrPC, or whether such grounds are alien to the statutory framework governing bail.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner relied on multiple precedents: Pritpal Singh v. State of Bihar, Biman Chatterjee v. Sanchita Chatterjee, and Dolat Ram v. State of Haryana, to argue that bail cancellation requires supervening circumstances affecting the fairness of trial - such as tampering with evidence, intimidating witnesses, or absconding. He emphasized that mediation terms are confidential under Section 22(3) of the Mediation Act, 2023, and cannot be invoked to revoke a statutory right like bail. The condition imposed was ultra vires the CrPC.
For the Respondent
The State and the opposite party contended that the bail was granted conditionally, and breach of such a condition amounted to abuse of liberty. They argued that courts have inherent power to enforce conditions imposed at the time of bail grant, and that non-payment of maintenance undermined the court’s authority and the spirit of compromise.
The Court's Analysis
The Court undertook a rigorous analysis of statutory provisions and binding precedents. It held that bail is a statutory right, not a privilege contingent on private agreements. The Court quoted Biman Chatterjee:
"The grant of bail under the Criminal Procedure Code is governed by the provision of Chapter XXXIII of the Code and the provision therein does not contemplate either granting of a bail on the basis of an assurance of a compromise or cancellation of a bail for violation of the terms of such compromise."
It further noted that Dolat Ram requires "very cogent and overwhelming circumstances" for cancellation, none of which were present here. The Court rejected the notion that a mediation term could serve as a condition for bail, citing Section 22(3) of the Mediation Act, 2023, which explicitly prohibits courts from taking cognizance of mediation communications. This provision was designed to ensure free and confidential negotiation, and its violation by the trial court rendered the condition illegal ab initio.
The Court concluded that the cancellation order was mechanically passed without regard to the enumerated grounds for bail cancellation in Jyotshna Sharma, and that the trial court had conflated civil obligations with criminal procedure.
The Verdict
The petitioner won. The Court held that bail cannot be cancelled solely for violating terms of a mediation settlement, as such grounds are alien to the CrPC and prohibited under the Mediation Act, 2023. The cancellation order was quashed, and the original anticipatory bail was restored.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Mediation Terms Are Inadmissible for Bail Decisions
- Practitioners must challenge any bail condition tied to mediation outcomes as void under Section 22(3) of the Mediation Act, 2023.
- Courts imposing such conditions are acting beyond statutory authority and invite quashing under Section 482 CrPC.
Bail Cancellation Requires Statutorily Recognized Grounds
- Only grounds listed in Jyotshna Sharma and Dolat Ram - such as witness tampering, absconding, or obstruction of justice - are valid.
- Non-payment of maintenance, even if court-ordered in civil proceedings, cannot trigger criminal bail cancellation unless it constitutes contempt or flight risk.
Judicial Overreach in Bail Conditions Is Now Clearly Prohibited
- Judges must avoid blending civil dispute resolution mechanisms with criminal procedure.
- Any bail order referencing mediation terms should be appealed immediately, as it is legally unsustainable.
