Partly allowed

M/S. Bansal Properties through Its Partner Gangabhishan Barumal Agarwal and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC11 Jan 2019APPR/18/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allowed bail for applicants convicted under Section 138 NI Act who deposited 25% compensation, on terms of immediate payment of dues and furnishing bail bond.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted on deposit of Rs. 50,000/- each and furnishing a PR bond in Rs. 15,000/- each with sureties; release pending revision.

What the court decided

M/S. Bansal Properties through Its Partner Gangabhishan… — Cheque Dishonour | Bombay HC (2019)

¶1

Sherla V.

¶2

appr.18.2019_504.doc

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.18 OF 2019 IN

¶5

CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.13 OF 2019

¶6

M/s.Bansal Properties through its Partners – Gangabhishan Barumal … Applicants Agarwal & Ors.

¶7

The State of Maharashtra & anr. … Respondents

¶8

Mr.Aniket Nikam I/b V.N. Arote for the Applicants

¶9

Mr.Vinod Chate, APP, for the Respondent – State

¶10

CORAM: Mrs.MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.

¶11

DATED: JANUARY 11, 2019

¶12

P.C.:

¶13

Upon urgent mentioning, taken on Production Board.

¶14

The applicants/accused are convicted under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pune by order dated 27.9.2017 and are sentenced till rising of the Court and to pay fine of Rs.6 lakhs and I/d to suffer

¶15

S.I. for 6 months. Accused No.5 has been directed to pay the said

¶16

amount by way of compensation to the complainant. Against the

¶17

Page 1 of 3

¶18

appr.18.2019_504.doc

¶19

said order, the applicants/accused filed Criminal Appeal No.495 of 2017 which was confirmed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pune vide order dated 21.12.2018 and hence, this application and revision.

¶20

The learned Counsel appearing for the applicants/accused submits that the applicants/accused have a good case on merits. He submits that as per the directions given by the learned Sessions Judge, the applicants have deposited 25% of the amount of compensation in the appeal in the Sessions Court, within two weeks. He, therefore, prays for bail and suspension of impugned sentence, pending revision.

¶21

Learned Prosecutor is present and submits to the orders of the Court.

¶22

In view of the submissions of the learned Counsel and also as there is no chance that the Revision Application will be heard in near future, the application is allowed on the following terms:

¶23

i) The applicants/accused shall deposit a sum of Rs.50,000/- each, with two weeks.

¶24

Page 2 of 3

¶25

appr.18.2019_504.doc

¶26

ii) Subject to the deposit being made as mentioned above in clause (i), the applicants/accused shall be released on bail upon furnishing a P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs.15,000/- each, with one or two sureties in the like amount;

¶27

iii) The applicants/accused shall make themselves available on all the Court dates.

¶28

Issue notice to the respondents in the Criminal Revision Application, returnable on 8.3.2019.

¶29

Criminal Application stands disposed of accordingly.

¶30

(MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.)

¶31

Page 3 of 3

M/S. Bansal Properties through Its Partner Gangabhishan Barumal Agarwal and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

M/S. Bansal Properties through Its Partner Gangabhishan Barumal Agarwal and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri Mahesh Bhiku Rathod . Vs the State .

Vilas Shridhar Bhabhal Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Vinod Chandulal Shah Vs Securities and Exchange Board of India and Anr.

Prabhu Industries Prop. Shobha Shankar Khot Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Priti Prashant Bhingade Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Prabhu Industries Prop. Shobha Shankar Khot Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.