SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Raj) 8876

HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JODHPUR BENCH)
FARJAND ALI
GURVINDER SINGH – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF RAJASTHAN – Respondent
CRLMP / 7998 / 2025



[2026:RJ-JD:12862]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 7998/2025 Gurvinder Singh S/o Gurdeep Singh, Aged About 52 Years, R/o Street No. 9, Opposite Manak Ki Dukaan, Rampura Basti, Lalgarh, District Bikaner- (334001)

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor

2. Rajveer Singh S/o Jasveer Singh, Resident Of 20 Gb, Tehsil Sri Vijaynagar, District Sri Ganganagar.

----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kunal Singh Rathore For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ramesh Dewasi, P.P.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

Order

18/03/2026

1. By way of filing the instant misc. petition, a challenge has been made to the order dated 07.08.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Raisinghnagar in Criminal Appeal No.26/2025, whereby the application under Section 528 of BNSS filed by the petitioner was allowed with the condition to deposit

20% of fine amount.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the material as made available to this Court.

3. After conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, the petitioner moved an appeal along with an order dated 07.08.2025 imposing a condition of depositing 20% of the fine amount awarded by the trial Court.

2. The grievance of the petitioner is that in view of the mandate of law and the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jamboo Bhandari Vs. M.P. State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. reported in (2023) 10 SCC 446, the direction to deposit 20% of the compensation amount is discretionary in nature and, therefore, the petitioner may be directed to deposit

10% of the cheque amount.

3. A co-ordinate Bench of this Court in S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 7315/2024 (Pradeep Tusawda Vs. Bheraram Khatik) decided on 21.10.2024 has held that the requirement of deposit of 20% under Section 148 of the N.I. Act is not absolute and the appellate court can relax or dispense with such condition in appropriate cases to avoid frustration of the right of appeal.

4. In view of the limited prayer made, the legal position governing the field and the law enunciated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as by this Court, this Court deems it appropriate to make a limited modification in the impugned order.

5. Accordingly, the present petition is partly allowed and the order dated [date] passed by the learned appellate court is modified to the extent that the petitioner shall deposit 10% of the cheque amount instead of 20% of the fine/compensation amount, within the period stipulated by the learned appellate court.

6. However, in case the period so stipulated has already expired, the learned court below shall, upon presentation of a certified copy of this order, grant a further period of 10 days to the petitioner for depositing the aforesaid amount.

7. All pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

(FARJAND ALI),J

44-Taruna/-

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top