Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Anoop Chitkara, Sanjay Vashisth, JJ.
M/s Coromandel International Limited - Petitioner
Versus
Shri Ambica Sales Corporation - Respondent
CRM-M-7799-2025, CRM-M-8498-2025
Decided On : 24-09-2025
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. legal propositions concerning bail and compensation deposit. (Para 1) |
| 2. discussion of conditional bail requirements and related case law. (Para 2 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. overview of provisions in the ni act regarding compensation deposits. (Para 8 , 9) |
| 4. analysis of sections related to suspension and appeal. (Para 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 5. considerations on the discretionary power of the appellate court. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 6. interpretation of statutory language impacting judicial discretion. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22) |
| 7. relevance and implications of judicial precedents. (Para 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27) |
| 8. judicial review and the legislative intent behind the ni act. (Para 28 , 29 , 30 , 31) |
| 9. principles governing bailable offences and conditions for bail. (Para 32 , 33 , 34) |
| 10. conclusions related to conditions imposed by courts on suspension. (Para 35 , 36) |
| 11. clarifications on the effect of financial conditions on liberty. (Para 37 , 38 , 39 , 40) |
| 12. implications of non-compliance with court orders regarding bail. (Para 41 , 42 , 43 , 44) |
| 13. analysis of procedural requirements under the ni act. (Para 45 , 46 , 47) |
| 14. final considerations on the appropriate interpretations of the law. (Para 48 , 49 , 50 , 51) |
| 15. recommendations for judicial expediency in handling bailable items. (Para 52 , 53 , 54) |
| 16. discussion relating to procedural regularity and fairness in bail processes. (Para 55 , 56 , 57) |
| 17. final orders and directives for judicial review. (Para 58 , 59 , 60) |
| 18. legislative clarity regarding the continuity of appeals. (Para 62 , 63 , 64 , 65) |
| 19. final observations on the judicial interpretation of statutory provisions. (Para 66 , 67) |
| 20. summary and future directions articulated in the ruling. (Para 68 , 69 , 70) |
| 21. conclusions relating to exceptional contexts in deposit requirements. (Para 71 , 72 , 73 , 74 , 75) |
| 22. final notes on judicial recommendations and future applications. (Para 76 , 77 , 78 , 79) |
JUDGMENT :
ANOOP CHITKARA, J.
1. The above two connected matters were placed before this Bench to answer the following legal propositions:
(a) Whether imposition of condition to deposit 20% of the compensation amount awarded by the Trial Court, is sustainable or not, while deciding the application for suspension of sentence in an appeal, when the judgment of conviction and order of sentence is still awaiting confirmation?
(b) Whether the right of the convict-appellant being on bail in pending appeal, can be subjected to the compliance of direction to pay 20% of the compensation amount under Section 148 of the NI Act?
(c) Whether the right of bail can be taken away by the Appellate Court, where final adjudication of the appeal is pending, due to non-compliance of the direction to pay 20% of the compensation amount under Section 148 of the NI Act, for any justifiable or un-justifiable reason, as discussed in the cases of Jamboo Bhandari[Jamboo Bhandari v. M.P. State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. & Ors., (2003) 10 SCC 446. [Decided on 04-09-2023]] and Muskan Enterprises[Muskan Enterprises and another v. State of Punjab and another, 2024 SCC Online SC 4107 [Decided on 19-12-2024]]
(d) Whether it is a pre-condition to deposit 20% of the compensation amount awarded by the Trial Court, for getting an appeal decided?
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that in various judgments of the Hon’ble the Supreme Court, the situation of passing a conditional order at the time of suspending the sentence has already been discussed, and thereupon it is clearly observed that the Appellate Court can impose such a condition in view of Section 148 of the NI Act. Once the Hon’ble Apex Court has already settled a proposition of law, no other view can be taken regarding the condition to be imposed while granting bail in appeal. 3. Mr. Deepender Singh, Advocate, learned Amicus, by placing reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of G.J. Raja v. Tejraj Surana , 2019 (3) RCR (Criminal) 959 : (2020) 3
The condition to deposit 20% compensation under Section 148 of the NI Act is not absolute; appellate courts may waive or reduce it based on individual circumstances and should not infringe on the rig....
Petitioners cannot be compelled to deposit 20% of compensation for bail under Section 138 NI Act, as this condition infringes on their right to appeal and to liberty.
Dishonour of cheque – Suspension of sentence – Imposition of condition by first appellate court to deposit 20% of compensation amount awarded is valid.
The appellate court can waive the 20% deposit requirement under Section 148 of the NI Act if compelling circumstances are demonstrated.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
