IMPOSING A CONDITION OF DEPOSIT WHILE SUSPENDING THE SENTENCE IS ILLEGAL AND AMOUNTS TO DEPRIVING THE ACCUSED OF RELEASE ON BAIL DURING THE PENDENCY OF APPEAL.

JUDGMENT

ORDER

Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J. - Petitioner has preferred this misc. petition under section 482 of Cr.P.C., 1973 against the order dated 16.01.2017 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Bikaner in Appeal Criminal No.03/2017 while suspending the sentence under section 389 of Cr.P.C., 1973 for conviction under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, a condition was imposed to deposit an amount of Rs. 1,54,000/- within 15 days.

2. The matter is covered by the judgment rendered by a coordinate Bench of this Court in Gurmeet Singh @ Baba vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr., decided on 20.03.2015.

3. The aforementioned order passed in Gurmeet Singh @ Baba vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. (supra) reads as under:" The petitioner has filed this criminal misc. petition while challenging the order dated 17.01.2015 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Sri Ganganagar (hereinafter referred to as ''the appellate court''), whereby an application under Section 389 Cr.P.C., 1973 filed by the petitioner for suspension of sentence, awarded to him by the Special Judicial Magistrate (NI Act Cases) No.1, Sri Ganganagar (hereinafter referred to as ''the trial court''), has been decided while imposing a condition that he shall deposit a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- and also furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- and one surety bond of like amount.

The petitioner has challenged the order dated 17.01.2015 to the extent of imposing the condition of depositing the amount of fine.

Brief facts of the case are that in a proceeding under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, the petitioner was convicted by the trial court and sentenced for six months'' simple imprisonment vide judgment and order dated 20.12.2014. He was also directed to pay compensation in the sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- to the complainant.

Feeling aggrieved of the aforesaid judgment passed by the trial court dated 20.12.2014, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the appellate court. Along with the said appeal, the petitioner filed an application under Section 389 Cr.P.C., 1973 for suspension of sentence awarded by the trial court during the pendency of the appeal. The appellate court decided the application for suspension of sentence vide impugned order dated 17.01.2015 and ordered that the sentence awarded to the petitioner by the trial court shall remain suspended subject to the condition that the petitioner may deposit the amount of fine i.e. Rs. 1,00,000/- and also furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- and one surety bond of like amount.

Being aggrieved with the said condition of depositing fine, the petitioner has filed this criminal misc. petition.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the appellate court has illegally imposed the condition of depositing amount of fine while suspending the sentence awarded to the petitioner by the trial court during the pendency of the appeal. It is further contended that imposing of such condition tantamounts to deprive the petitioner from his release on bail during the pendency of appeal. It is also contended that imposition of such condition would amount to refusal of suspension of sentence during the pendency of appeal.

In support of above contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the decision rendered by Coordinate Bench of this Court at Jaipur Bench in Amarveer Singh vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. reported in 2010 (1) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 414. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has argued that the impugned order passed by the appellate court is not suffering from any illegality as the appellate court has discretionary power to impose such condition, therefore, no interference is called for.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order.

The coordinate Bench of this Court in Amarveer Singh''s case (supra) while taking into consideration the question of power of appellate court of imposing any condition while deciding an application under Sectio