Partly allowed

Smt. Mohini Awasthi v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC5 Jul 2019A482/23905/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge quashed an impugned order in a bail application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. held that directing a deposit of Rs. 1,00,000 violated Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, exceeding the minimum 20% statutory limit, and was onerous. Condition modified to 20% deposit within three weeks.

What did the court decide?

Condition of bail modified to require deposit of 20% of the fine/compensation within three weeks.

Smt. Mohini Awasthi Vs State of U.P. and Another — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 72

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 23905 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Smt. Mohini Awasthi Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ashvani Tripathi,Raghuvansh Misra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rajiv Joshi,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Raghuvansh Misra, learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State.

¶6

Present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the order dated 7.6.2019 passed by the Presiding Sessions/Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.6 Kanpur Nagar in Criminal Appeal No. 85 of 2019, whereby the applicant was directed to be released on bail on furnishing security/bail bond subject to payment of Rs. 1,00,000/- within a period of one month from the date of the order for bail/suspension of sentence of conviction dated 09.05.2019.

¶7

Appeal No. 85 of 2019 has been filed challenging the order dated 09.05.2019 passed by Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Kanpur, whereby while awarding the compensation of Rs. 2,60,000/-, the applicant was convicted for simple imprisonment for six months with fine of Rs. 10,000/ and in default of payment of fine to undergo further imprisonment of two months.

¶8

The order dated 7.6.2019 passed by the Presiding Sessions/Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.6 Kanpur Nagar in Criminal Appeal No. 85 of 2019 is under challenge in the present application so far as it imposed the condition for the payment Rs. 1,00,000/- within a period of one month from the date of the order for bail/suspension of sentence of conviction dated 09.05.2019.

¶9

Contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that in view of the amendment in Section 148 of Negotiable Instrument Act (hereinafter referred to as Act), the appellate court may order the appellant to deposit a sum minimum 20% of the fine compensation awarded by the trial court. It is further contended by learned counsel for the applicant that condition imposed vide impugned order while granting bail is against the statutory provisions of law and such condition is unreasonable, unjust and onerous, which amounts to denial of bail.

¶10

Per contra, learned AGA contends that apart from sentence of imprisonment, fine was also imposed by trial court and the condition imposed for granting bail is as per Section 148 of the Act, whereby minimum 20% can be directed to be paid by the accused-applicant in an appeal filed against conviction under Section 138 of the Act.

¶11

I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record.

¶12

As per Section 148 (1) of the Act, the appellate court may order the appellant/applicant to deposit such amount, which shall be minimum of 20% of fine or compensation awarded by the trial court.

¶13

No doubt the appellate court has discretion to direct the appellant for deposition of any amount exceeding to minimum 20%, but no reasoning has been given as to why the applicant was directed to deposit Rs. 1,00,000/- while granting bail. The condition imposed by the appellate court appears to be onerous and virtually amounts to denial of bail.

¶14

In the case of Amit Nigam Vs. State of U.P. and Another, 2017 LawSuit (AII) 679 , this Court has taken a similar view after considering the provisions of Section 357 and the provisions of Section 138 and 141 of the Act and several judgment of the Apex Court that the condition while granting bail should not be onerous.

¶15

In view of the above, the condition for depositing Rs. 1,00,000/for granting bail being erroneous and harsh is liable to be modified and is accordingly modified to the extent of 20% of the amount imposed by the trial court towards fine, which shall be deposited within a period of three weeks from today.

¶16

In the result, application is partly allowed with the aforesaid modification in the order 07.06.2019 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 85 of 2019. The order impugned is modified accordingly.

¶17

Order Date :- 5.7.2019 Noman

Smt. Mohini Awasthi v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Mohini Awasthi v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pramod Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another

Kamlesh Kumar Patel Vs State of U.P. and Another

Satpal and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. Another

Saleem Shaikh Alias Babloo and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Poonam and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Nabisher Vs State of Up and Another