News Citation : 2026 LN (HC) 28
Ranchi, January 06, 2026 : The Jharkhand High Court has set aside an order cancelling anticipatory bail, holding that bail cannot be revoked solely because an accused failed to honour terms discussed during mediation or a private compromise. The ruling reiterates settled law that criminal bail is governed strictly by the Code of Criminal Procedure and cannot hinge on promises of settlement between parties.
The case arose from a criminal miscellaneous petition filed by Shivnarayan Yadav, who had earlier been granted anticipatory bail in connection with an Argora police station case in Ranchi. In June 2023, a Judicial Commissioner cancelled that bail after concluding that the petitioner had violated an agreement reached with the complainant, including an alleged failure to make a promised payment. Challenging the cancellation, the petitioner argued that non-compliance with a compromise cannot be treated as a valid ground for cancelling bail.
A single-judge Bench of Justice Anil Kumar Choudhary agreed with the submission. The Court relied on long-standing Supreme Court precedents which make it clear that bail cannot be granted or cancelled on grounds alien to those set out in Chapter XXXIII of the CrPC. The judgment emphasised that failure to fulfil a compromise or assurance, by itself, does not amount to misuse of liberty and therefore cannot justify cancellation of bail.
The Court also referred to Section 22 of the Mediation Act, 2023, which protects the confidentiality of mediation proceedings. It noted that parties are barred from relying on mediation communications, proposals, or acceptances in court proceedings. On this basis, the Bench held that the trial court had committed a grave illegality by cancelling bail solely on the ground that the petitioner did not comply with mediation terms.
Allowing the petition, the High Court quashed the June 22, 2023 order of the Judicial Commissioner and restored the anticipatory bail earlier granted to the petitioner. The ruling reinforces the principle that criminal courts must not conflate private settlement disputes with the statutory considerations governing bail, and that mediation outcomes cannot be enforced indirectly through cancellation of bail.
Case Reference: Cr.M.P. No. 886 of 2024, Shivnarayan Yadav v. State of Jharkhand & Another; Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. Sudhanshu Shekhar, Advocate, and Mr. Prakash Kumar, Advocate; Counsel for the State: Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Additional Public Prosecutor; Counsel for Opposite Party No. 2: Mr. Avilash Kumar, Advocate, and Mr. Sahil, Advocate.
