Applicant sought leave to appeal against an acquittal in a cheque-dishonour matter. The court granted leave to appeal, admitted the main appeal, and directed the accused to furnish a personal bond of Rs. 10,000 with attendance undertakings, citing Mahidul Sheikh on bail-bond options.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
253 CRM-A-1523-MA-2018
AVINASH KUMAR SHUKLA V/S LAL CHAND
Present: Mr. Manoj Kumar Sood, Advocate for the applicant.
None for the respondent.
Counsel for the applicant submits that the present application
was filed against acquittal in the year 2018 and he has a very good case on
merit.
As per report of the registry, the respondent stands duly served. However, none has appeared on his behalf.
I have heard counsel for the applicant and gone through the record.
Leave to appeal granted.
The accused to execute a bond for attendance within two months, undertaking to appear in this court, in case the appeal is allowed. In Mahidul Sheikh v. State of Haryana , CRM-33030-2021 in CRA-S-363-2020, decided on 14-01-2022, Para 53, this Court observed, [53]. The pragmatic approach is that while granting bail with sureties, the “Court” and the “Arresting Officer” should give a choice to the accused to either furnish surety bonds or to handover a fixed deposit, or direct electronic money transfer where such facility is available, or creating a lien over his bank account. The accused should also have a further option to switch between the modes. The option lies with the accused to choose between the sureties and deposits and not with the Court or the arresting officer.
SMRITI 2024.11.07 09:41 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment
CRM-A-1523-MA-2018 -2-
Given above, within two months, the accused shall furnish a personal bond of Rs. Ten Thousand only (INR 10,000/-) to the satisfaction of the concerned Trial Court/Duty Magistrate.
The attesting officer shall, on the reverse page of personal bonds, mention the permanent address of the accused along with the phone number(s), WhatsApp number (if any), e-mail (if any), and in case of any change, the Accused shall immediately and not later than 30 days from such modification, intimate about the change of residential address and change of phone numbers, WhatsApp number, e-mail accounts, to the Registry of this Court.
The furnishing of the personal bonds shall be deemed acceptance of the all stipulations, terms, and conditions of this bail order.
There would be no need for a certified copy of this order for furnishing bonds, and any Advocate for the accused can download this order along with case status from the official web page of this Court and attest it to be a true copy. In case the attesting officer wants to verify the authenticity, such an officer can also verify its authenticity and may download and use the downloaded copy for attesting bonds.
Registry to send copy of this order to the trial Court as well as to the respondents. It is clarified that in case, after getting the copy of this order, respondents do not furnish bonds within two months, trial Court might proceed further in accordance with law.
Main appeal
Admit.
However, liberty be granted to the parties for sending the matter to the Mediation and Conciliation Centre.
List for final hearing on its own turn as per its queue following
the roster of NI Act.
06.11.2024 (ANOOP CHITKARA ) smriti JUDGE
SMRITI 2024.11.07 09:41 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Mahidul Sheikh v. State of HaryanaRelied on¶12
CRM-33030-2021 in CRA-S-363-2020, decided on 14-01-2022
Avinash Kumar Shukla
Lal Chand
Anoop Chitkara
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
