Partly allowed

Subhas Agrawal v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC8 Jul 2019CRLR/2268/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Revision allowed partially. Court modified bail conditions in a case under Section 138 NI Act, reducing the required security from 50% to the statutory minimum of 20% of the fine, citing that higher deposits without reasoning deny bail.

What did the court decide?

The condition for depositing 50% of the fine while granting bail was modified to 20% of the fine amount imposed by the trial court.

Subhas Agrawal Vs State of U.P. and Another — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 72

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2268 of 2019

¶3

Revisionist :- Subhas Agrawal Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Ramesh Kumar Ojha Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rajiv Joshi,J.

¶5

Learned AGA submits that in present case no counter affidavit is required and the matter be decided finally at this stage.

¶6

Heard Sri Ramesh Kumar Ojha, learned counsel for the revisionist and learned AGA for the State.

¶7

Present present revision has been filed for setting aside the order dated 25.5.2019 passed by the Sessions Judge, Agra in Criminal Appeal No. 155 of 2019 (Subhas Agrawal Vs. State of U.P.) under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, P.S. Sadar, District- Agra whereby the revisionist was directed to be released on bail on furnishing security/bail bond subject to payment of 50% of the fine amount.

¶8

Criminal Appeal No. 155 of 2019 was filed challenging the order dated 9.5.2019 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Agra, whereby the applicant was convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment of two year and to pay fine of Rs. 18,25,000/- for offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act.

¶9

The impugned appellate order dated 25.5.2019 is challenged in the present revision in so far as it imposes the condition for payment of 50% of fine.

¶10

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 revisionist to deposit a sum minimum 20% of the compensation awarded by the trial court. It is further contended by learned counsel for the revisionist 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. It is next contended that the revisionist, namely Subhas Agrawal is not in position to pay the amount as per the impugned order.

¶11

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 revisionist in an appeal filed against conviction under Section 138 of the N.I.Act.

¶12

I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record.

¶13

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.

¶14

No doubt the appellate court has discretion to direct the appellant/revisionist for deposit of any amount exceeding to minimum 20%, but no reasoning has been given as to why the revisionist 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.

¶15

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. Even otherwise in the affidavit,it is stated that the revisionist is unable to pay 50% of the fine, which was directed to be paid by the appellate court while granting bail.

¶16

In view of the above, the condition for depositing 50% of the fine for granting bail being erroneous and harsh it is liable to be modified and is accordingly modified to the extent of 20% of the amount imposed by the trial court towards fine.

¶17

With the aforesaid modification in the order 25.5.2019 passed in Criminal Appeal No. No. 155 of 2019, the revision is partly allowed.

¶18

Order Date :- 8.7.2019 Akbar

Subhas Agrawal v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Subhas Agrawal 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

Smt. Mohini Awasthi Vs State of U.P. and 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

Smt. Ritika @ Radha Vs State of Up and 3 Other

Shailendra Singh Vs State of Up and Another

Utkarsh Gupta @ Nishant and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another