Non-compliance with the condition of bail, as per Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, can justify the cancellation of bail.

JUDGMENT

Jasgurpreet Singh Puri, J. (Oral). - Through Video Conference

2. This judgment shall dispose of a bunch of above noted six petitions in which the dispute is inter se between the petitioner M/s Ajju C.S. who is proprietor of a firm namely M/s Ajju Mines and Minerals Victor Palace, Mezzanine Floor Opposite Ambedkar Park, Patto, Panaji, Goa and M/s JSC Ispat Private Limited (formerly known as Jawala Steel Corporation).

3. Three petitions i.e. CRM-M-3833-2021, CRM-M-4733-2021 and CRM-M-4777-2021, are the petitions seeking anticipatory bail by the petitioner and these three cases of anticipatory bail are corresponding to the subject matter of other three quashing petitions i.e. CRM-M-41226-2019, CRM-M-41261-2019, and CRM-M-41847-2019, filed seeking quashing of order dated 23.5.2019 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad, whereby a condition was imposed to deposit 20% of the compensation amount under Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short hereinafter referred to as 'the Act). The total compensation amount in all these three similar cases comes to Rs. 1,05,00,000/- approximately and all the three orders have been passed on 23.5.2019.

4. For the sake of convenience, the anticipatory bail petition i.e. CRM-M-3833-2021 and quashing petition i.e. CRM-M-41487-2019, are taken up for describing the facts of the case.

5. The petitioner was convicted by the learned trial Court under the provisions of Section 138 of the Act on 29.3.2019 for a period of one year and was also directed to pay compensation to the complainant to the tune of Rs.37,50,000/- for commission of offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act.

6. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an appeal before the learned Sessions Judge, Faridabad and vide order dated 23.5.2019, when the appeal was presented, it was directed that in view of the provisions of Section 148 of the Act (as inserted by Act No.20 of 2018 w.e.f. 1.9.2018) the appellant was directed to deposit 20% of the compensation amount in the form of a bank draft in favour of the complainant within a period of 60 days. It was further directed that subject to the aforesaid condition, the appellant (petitioner) shall be admitted to bail on furnishing of bail bond in the sum of Rs.1 lac with one surety in the like amount. This period of 60 days would elapse on 22.7.2019.

7. Petitioner challenged the aforesaid order dated 23.5.2019, by filing CRM-M-41847 of 2019. It was prayed in the said petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. that condition imposed by the learned Appellate Court to deposit 20% of the compensation amount in the form of bank draft within 60 days is liable to be quashed. The petition (CRM-M-41847 of 2019) was filed on the ground that it was an unreasonable condition which is imposed by the learned Appellate Court.

8. On 17.2.2020, this Court passed interim order by observing that the petitioners are permitted to deposit 20% of the compensation amount latest by 17.3.2020. It was further directed that bail granted to the petitioners, in the circumstances, would not be cancelled provided that such amount is positively paid within the date fixed.

9. Thereafter, on 11.12.2020, it was brought to the notice of this Court that till date the said amount has not been deposited and the learned counsel for the petitioners sought one week's time to get instructions. The matter was thereafter adjourned.

10. Since the petitioner did not deposit 20% of the compensation amount by 17.3.2020, and there was no further interim order passed by this Court, the learned Appellate Court on 12.1.2021, passed a detailed order by giving background of the case and observed that the appellant (petitioner) was consistently disobeying the directions of the High Court contained in order dated 17.2.2020 and has not deposited 20% of the compensation amount till date which he was otherwise required to deposit upto 17.3.2020, and the learned Appellate Court considering the circumstances of the case cancelled th