[2025:RJ-JP:50863]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 7949/2025 Bajranglal Sharma Son Of Shrinivas Sharma, Resident Of Goyal Agency, Opposite Vidya Bharti School, Ward No. 39, Sikar, Tehsil And District Sikar (Rajasthan).

----Accused-Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through P.P.

----Respondent

2. Sultan Singh Mahala Son Of Parmaram, Resident Of Ward No. 26, Gulab Ji Ki Chakki, Devipura, Sikar, Tehsil And District Sikar (Rajasthan).

----Complainant/Respondent

3. Smt. Manju Devi Wife Of Bajranglal Sharma, Resident Of Goyal Agency, Opposite Vidya Bharti School, Ward No. 39, Sikar, Tehsil And District Sikar (Rajasthan).

----Proforma Respondent/Accused-Appellant-Petitioner For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Fatehchand Saini, Adv.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. M.S. Shekhawat, PP with Mr. Gaura Gupta, Asstt.G.A.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN

Order

16/12/2025

1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 challenging the order dated 04.11.2025 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge No.1, Sikar (hereinafter referred to as, ‘the Appellate Court’) whereby the Appellate Court while allowing the application filed by the petitioner for suspension of sentence in a pending appeal against the conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as, ‘the NI Act’) has imposed a condition on the petitioner to deposit 20% of the fine amount.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Appellate Court was not justified in directing the petitioner to deposit 20% of the fine amount because by putting such condition it has taken away the petitioner’s right to file an appeal. Learned counsel submits that the financial condition of the petitioner is very poor and he is suffering from financial crisis, therefore, the amount of fine shall be relaxed against the petitioner.

3. In support of his aforesaid contention, learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Jamboo Bhandari Vs. M.P. State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd & Ors. reported in (2023) 10 SCC 446, and the judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court at Principal Seat, Jodhpur in the case of Kailash Soni Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. while deciding SB Criminal Misc. Petition No.2624/2024 and the judgment of the Co- ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Harsh Mucchala Vs. Raghav Kacholiya while deciding SB Criminal Misc. Petition No.7955/2024.

4. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on record.

5. Considering the arguments put forward by learned counsel for the petitioner and looking to the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Jamboo Bhandari (supra), judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court at Principal Seat, Jodhpur in the case of Kailash Soni (supra) and the judgment passed in the case of Harsh Mucchala (supra), this Court deems it just and proper to modify the impugned order dated 04.11.2025 passed by the Appellate Court to the extent that the petitioner shall deposit 10% of the fine amount in place of 20%.

6. Accordingly, the instant criminal misc. petition stands partly allowed. The impugned order dated 04.11.2025 passed by the Appellate Court stands modified only to the extent of fine amount. Hence, the petitioner is directed to deposit 10% of the fine amount and the rest of the conditions imposed by the Appellate Court shall remain as it is.

7. In case, 10% of the fine amount is not deposited by the petitioner within a period of two weeks from today, the order dated 04.11.2025 will come into picture automatically and the petitioner would deposit 20% of the fine amount as directed by the Appellate Court.

8. Till deposition of the fine amount, no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioner.

9. The stay application and all other application(s), pending if any, also stan