[2026:RJ-JD:977]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

JODHPUR

S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 9196/2025

Chandra Prakash S/o Sh. Mohanlal, Aged About 40 Years, Maja Via Kothariya, Tehsil- Nathdwara, District- Rajsamand, Rajasthan

----Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

2. Kundanlal, Holi Mangra, Nathdwara, District- Rajsamand,

Rajasthan (Died) Through His Legal Representatives

3. Smt Ajad Devi W/o Lt. Sh. Kundanlal, Aged About 32

Years, Holi Mangra, Nathdwara, District- Rajsamand,

Rajasthan.

4. Bharti D/o Lt. Sh. Kundanlal, Aged About 35 Years, Holi

Mangra, Nathdwara, Presently R/o Lalbagh, Nathdwara,

Districtrajsamand, Rajasthan.

5. Chandanbala D/o Lt. Sh. Kundanlal, Aged About 38 Years,

Holi Mangra, Nathdwara, Presently R/o Lalbagh,

Nathdwara, Districtrajsamand, Rajasthan.

6. Hitesh S/o Lt. Sh. Kundanlal, Aged About 41 Years, Holi

Mangra, Nathdwara, District- Rajsamand, Rajasthan.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Love Jain

For Respondent(s) : Mr. H.S. Jodha, PP

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU

Order

08/01/2026

challenge has been made to the order dated 24.09.2025 passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Nathdwara,

District Rajsamand in Criminal Appeal No.85/2025.

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the present case are that after getting convicted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, the petitioner moved an appeal along with an application under Section 389 of Cr.P.C., before the learned Appellate Court. The appeal was admitted and while allowing the application under Section 389 of Cr.P.C., the learned Appellate Court vide order dated 24.09.2025 imposed a condition of depositing 20% of the compensation amount awarded by the trial Court.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is a poor person and he does not have sufficient source of income to even sustain himself. Learned counsel thus prayed that since the petitioner is facing financial crisis and is unable to satisfy the said condition of depositing the 20% of the compensation amount, the said condition be relaxed.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties at bar. Perused the material as made available to this Court.

5. It is settled law that the imposition of condition for deposition of 20% of the compensation amount is discretionary and thus keeping in view the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is facing financial hardship and is not in position to deposit 20% of the compensation amount awarded by the trial Court, this Court deems it appropriate to modify the aforementioned condition imposed in the order dated 24.09.2025.

allowed. The condition of deposition of 20% of the compensation amount vide order dated 24.09.2025 is modified. Now, the petitioner would deposit only 10% of the cheque amount instead of 20% of the compensation amount as imposed by the learned trial Court within a period of one month from the date of this order. The petitioner, upon fulfilling the condition of deposition of 10% of the cheque amount within stipulated time shall be entitled to be released on bail. It is however made clear that the other conditions imposed in the order dated 24.09.2025 shall remain intact.

7. The stay petition stands dismissed.

(BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU),J

98-deep/-