HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
ARVIND KUMAR VERMA, J.
Smt. Rashmindar Kaur Bhatia W/o Shir Kuldeep Singh Bhatia – Appellant
Versus
Nagrik Sahkari Bank Limited Through Shri M.S. Parihar S/o Late Shri Vishnu Singh Parihar – Respondent
CRMP No. 812 of 2025
Decided on : 05-03-2025
(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 528 - Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Section 138 and 148 - Petition against order directing deposit of 20% of cheque amount as a condition for bail - The Appellate Court's direction to deposit 20% of the compensation amount was challenged as illegal and not mandatory - The court emphasized that the Appellate Court must assess whether exceptional circumstances exist before imposing such conditions. (Paras 1, 6, 12, 14)
(B) Bail - Conditions for grant - The imposition of a deposit condition must be justified by the Appellate Court, which should record subjective satisfaction regarding the necessity of such a condition. (Paras 12, 14)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners were convicted under Section 138 of the NI Act and sentenced to imprisonment with a compensation order. They appealed against the conviction and sought bail, which was granted with a condition to deposit 20% of the cheque amount. (Paras 2, 3, 5)
Findings of Court:
The court found that the Appellate Court failed to justify the imposition of the deposit condition and did not establish that the case was exceptional. (Paras 12, 14)
Issues: Whether the Appellate Court can impose a condition to deposit 20% of the compensation amount for bail without justifying exceptional circumstances. (Paras 12, 14)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the Appellate Court must consider whether exceptional circumstances warrant the imposition of a deposit condition for bail, and such a condition cannot be imposed arbitrarily. (Paras 12, 14)
Result: The petition is allowed, and the order directing the deposit of 20% of the cheque amount is set aside.
Order :
(Arvind Kumar Verma, J.)
1. The present petition has been filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, against the order dated 28.12.2024, passed by Learned 10th Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur, in Criminal Appeal No. 471 of 2024, whereby the Learned Additional Sessions Judge has directed to deposit 20% of the amount of cheque within 60 days and then the appellant/accused may be released on bail after furnishing bail bond and surety of Rs. 10,000/-.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the complainant is a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956, possessing a valid banking license under the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, and engaged in all banking activities. The complainant provides various types of loans, including housing loans, as part of standard banking procedures. It is alleged that; the Applicant approached the complainant and requested a loan for expanding her transport business. Upon agreeing to the terms and conditions of the agreement, the complainant sanctioned a loan to the Applicant on 14.10.2011, and the Applicant maintained Loan Account No. 8734 (60803798717). In repayment of this loan, the Applicant issued Cheque No. 926864 (Axis Bank, Pandri Branch, Account No. 13901020027016) dated 18.11.2016 for ₹3,12,000/-, duly signed by her. The complainant presented the cheque for clearance at HDFC Bank, Raipur, Sundar Nagar Branch, but it was returned dishonored BALANCE." on 23.11.2016 due to "INSUFFICIENT.” After receiving notice of the dishonor, the complainant sent a legal notice to the Applicant via registered post on 15.12.2016, demanding the payment of the dishonored cheque amount. The Applicant received the notice on 20.12.2016 but failed to make the payment to date. Therefore, charge under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was framed against the appellant and she was convicted in Criminal Complaint Case No. 451/2017 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act vide Order dated 29.11.2024.
3. After trial of the complaint case, the Learned Trial Court has convicted the petitioners for the offence under Section 138 of the NIAct and have sentenced them to simple imprisonment for 02 years with compensation of Rs.04,43,040/-, in default of payment of compensation amount, additional simple imprisonment for 30 days.
4. The petitioners have filed an appeal under Section 415 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 before the Learned 10th Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur along with an application under Section 430(1) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for suspension of sentence and grant of bail. The said criminal appeal is registered as Criminal Case No. 471 of 2024.
5. On 28.12.2024, the Learned 10th Additional Sessions Judge has passed the order of suspending the sentence and grant of bail to the petitioners on furnishing the bail bond and surety of Rs.10,000/- subject to the appellants’ depositing 20% of the amount of cheque within 60 days. This is the order under challenge in the present petition.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the order impugned with respect to deposition of 20% of the cheque amount is illegal, because the deposition of 20% is not mandatory, yet the Learned Appellate Court has directed to deposit 20% of the amount of the awarded compensation. The Learned Appellate Court is not empowered to impose condition to deposit 20% amount of the awarded compensation as the condition precedent for granting bail to the petitioners. No reason has been assigned by the Learned Appellate Court for directing to deposit 20% amount of the awarded compensation in the impugned order and direction could be made only in exceptional circumstances, which is lacking in the case and therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
7. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the documents annexed with the petition.
8. From perusal of the order sheet dated 28.12.2024 (Annexure P/1),annexed with the
The Appellate Court must justify the imposition of a deposit condition for bail by assessing whether exceptional circumstances exist, as per Section 148 of the NI Act.
The appellate court can waive the 20% deposit requirement under Section 148 of the NI Act if compelling circumstances are demonstrated.
The aim of Section 148 NI Act is to provide relief to the complainant by empowering the Appellate Court to direct payment of a portion of the fine/compensation during the pendency of appeal. The vaca....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.