Partly allowed

Mohammad Ikrar v. State of Up and Another

Allahabad HC25 Jul 2019A482/28060/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Hon'ble Court allowed a revision under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to modify an erroneous bail condition. It held that directing the applicant to deposit 50% of the fine violated Section 148 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, which mandates a minimum of only 20%, and reduced the amount to the statutory limit.

What did the court decide?

The bail condition of depositing 50% of the fine was modified to requirement of depositing 20% of the fine.

Mohammad Ikrar Vs State of Up and Another — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 72

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 28060 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Mohammad Ikrar Opposite Party :- State Of Up And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sushil Kumar Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rajiv Joshi,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Sushil Kumar Shukla, 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 02.07.2019 passed by the Sessions Judge, Meerut in Criminal Appeal No. 66 of 2019 under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, whereby the applicant was directed to be released on bail on furnishing security/bail bond subject to payment of 50% of the fine amount (i.e. Rs. 12,12,000/-).

¶7

Appeal No. 66 of 2019 has been filed challenging the order dated 06.05.2019 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.5, Meerut, whereby the applicant was convicted for simple imprisonment of one year and six months and fine of Rs. 12,24,000/-.

¶8

The said order is under challenge in the present application so far as it imposed the condition for the payment of 50% of fine.

¶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 to deposit any amount exceeding to minimum 20%, but no reasoning has been given as to why the applicant was directed to deposit 50% of the fine 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 50% of the fine 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.

¶16

In the result, application is partly allowed with the aforesaid modification in the order dated 02.07.2019 passed by the Sessions Judge, Meerut in Criminal Appeal No. 66 of 2019 under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act. The order impugned is modified accordingly.

¶17

Order Date :- 25.7.2019 Noman

Mohammad Ikrar v. State of Up and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammad Ikrar v. State of Up 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

Hriday Narayan Mishra and 6 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Haroon Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Madan Gopal and 4 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and 2 Ors.

naubat and another Vs state of up and another

Alok Kumar Verma and 2 others Vs State of U.P. and another

Balister Vs State of U.P. and Another