IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: November 17, 2025

1. CRM-M-56288-2025 (O&M)

Shivam Jindal ......Petitioner Versus Shubhan Ali ......Respondent

2. CRM-M-57149-2025 (O&M)

Parshu Ram Gaur ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and another ......Respondents

3. CRM-M-59607-2025 (O&M)

Jasvir Singh ......Petitioner Versus Chander Shekhar ......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH Present: Mr. Satvir Singh, Mr. Kunal Jain, and Ms. Jaspreet Kaur, Advocates (in CRM-M-56288-2025), Ms. Pooja Jaglan, Advocate (in CRM-M-57149-2025), Ms. Ramanjit Kaur Basota, Advocate (in CRM-M-59607-2025)

for the petitioner(s).

****

SANJAY VASHISTH, J.

1. This common order would decide three petitions, i.e. CRM- M-56288-2025, CRM-M-57149-2025 and CRM-M-59607-2025, as the primary issue involved therein is same.

2. These petitions, under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023, have been filed by the petitioner(s) assailing the order(s) passed by the concerned Appellate Court(s) while deciding the application(s) for suspension of sentence, filed by the petitioner(s) alongwith the appeal(s) preferred by them against the judgement of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Trial Court, while deciding complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, ‘the NI Act’).

In all the cases, respective Appellate Court(s), while allowing the application(s) and suspending the sentence during pendency of the appeal(s), subjected the appellant(s)/petitioners herein to deposit 20% of the amount of compensation imposed by the Trial Court, within 60 days. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner(s) have approached this Court by filing the aforementioned petitions.

3. For the sake of brevity, the basic details of these three petitions have been summed up in tabular form, as under:-

CRM-M-56288-2025:-

CRM-M-57149-2025:-

Sessions Judge, Panipat (Appellate Court)

CRM-M-59607-2025:-

4. It is apt to mention that at the time of initial hearing of these petitions, this Court passed specific order in each petition that condition of deposit of 20% of the compensation amount as directed by the Appellate Court, vide impugned order(s), within a period of 60 days, shall remain inoperative, and the bail shall not be cancelled in consequence thereof.

5. In matters of M/s Coromandel International Limited v. Shri Ambica Sales Corporation (CRM-M-7799-2025), and M/s Coromandel International Limited v. Shri Ambalica Agro Solutions Pvt. Ltd. (CRM-M-8498-2025), the petitioner company, i.e. M/s Coromandel International Limited, which was the complainant before the Trial Court, had assailed the order(s) dated 06.03.2024, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda, primarily on the ground that concession of suspension of sentence granted in favour of the respondent(s) therein, is liable to be vacated because the respondent(s) failed to comply with the condition of deposit of 20% of the compensation amount awarded by the Trial Court, within the stipulated period of 60 days, i.e. from the date of order(s) dated 06.03.2024. In the alternative, prayer was made for directing the respondent(s) to deposit the same.

6. While dealing with the aforesaid two petitions, after noticing relevant provisions of the NI Act, Code of Criminal Procedure, judgments of this Court (Punjab and Haryana High Court), and the judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court, this Court found that in none of the cases, the implication of non-payment of the ordered amount under Section 148 of the NI Act vis-a-vis the right of suspension of sentence, with the parameters as speculated by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Jamboo Bhandari v. M.P. State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. & Ors., (2023) 10 SCC 446 : Law Finder Doc Id # 2313888 [SC, D/d. 04.09.2023] and Muskan Enterprises and another v. State of Punjab and another, 2024 SCC Online SC 4107 : Law Finder Doc Id # 2680202 [SC, D/d. 19.12.2024], was considered by Single Benches of this Court or the Hon’ble Apex Court. This Cour