THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M No.52238 of 2025 Date of Decision: 14.10.2025 Sushil Kumar @ Sushil Kumar Jangra ..... Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and another ..... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ ***

Present: Mr. Sanchit Punia, Advocate for the petitioner.

***

RAJESH BHARDWAJ, J. (ORAL)

1. Present petition has been filed praying for quashing of impugned order dated 08.11.2024 (Annexure P-4) passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar in Criminal Appeal No.402 of 2024, titled as Sushil Kumar vs. Vinod Kumar whereby the petitioner has been directed to pay 20% amount of the compensation awarded by the learned trial Court, order dated 18.04.2025 whereby recalling application is dismissed being not maintainable and order dated 07.07.2025 whereby bail is cancelled and bonds are forfeited as well as warrant of arrest is issued in utter violation of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal Nos.2741 of 2023 (SLP (Crl.) No.4927 of 2023 titled as Jamboo Bhandari vs. M.P. State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. and others’. Further prayer has been made for staying the operation of impugned orders dated 08.11.2024, 18.04.2025 and

07.07.2025 during the pendency of the present petition.

2. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner, namely, Sushil Kumar @ Sushil Kumar Jangra, was convicted under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for 01 year vide order dated 11.10.2024. He has submitted that the conviction and sentence order of the learned trial Court was assailed by the petitioner by way of filing an appeal before the learned Appellate Court. Though the application for suspension of sentence of the petitioner was allowed, however, the learned Appellate Court vide impugned order dated 08.11.2024, ordered the petitioner to deposit 20% of the amount of compensation awarded by the learned trial Court. He has submitted that the impugned order has been passed without giving any opportunity to the petitioner to submit response to the same. He has further submitted that the impugned order directing the petitioner to deposit 20% of the amount of compensation amount is unsustainable in the eyes of law as per the provisions of Section 148 of Negotiable Instruments Act and the same has been passed in violation of the law settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jamboo Bhandari vs M.P.State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. and others, 2024(1) SCC (Cri) 90. He has submitted that the petitioner was never afforded any opportunity to present his case for his financial hardships. He has submitted that application filed by the petitioner for recalling of the order dated 08.11.2024 was also dismissed by the learned trial Court vide order dated 18.04.2025. He has submitted that by virtue of the impugned order dated 07.07.2025, now the bail has been cancelled and bonds are forfeited to the State. He has submitted that warrant of arrest was also issued against the petitioner. He prays that the petitioner be granted one opportunity to present his case before the Appellate Court and then pass fresh order after considering his contentions as well as the mandate of Hon'ble Supreme Court. He has further stated that in the Jamboo Bhandari case (supra), it has been held that when Appellate Court considers the prayer under Section 389 of the Cr.P.C. of an accused who has been convicted for offence under Section 138 of the NI Act, it is always open for the Appellate Court to consider whether it is an exceptional case which warrants grant of suspension of sentence without imposing the condition of deposit of 20% of the fine/compensation amount. As stated earlier, if the Appellate Court comes to the conclusion that it is an exceptional case, the reasons for coming to the said conclusion must be recorded, which is missing in the present case.

3. Heard.

4. After hearing learned counsel for t