This order grants conditional interim bail to a petitioner chased for cheque dishonour, punishing his absconding by stipulating bail forfeiture and cost disbursement upon further defaults to the trial court.
Interim bail granted subject to forfeiture on consecutive defaults; Rs.30,000/- cost disbursed to Legal Services Authority.
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.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 1590/2018
Matin Ahamad Thekedar S/o Umar Thekedar B/c Muslim , R/o Ward No.4, Near Ram Dev Temple, Ahead Of Sardar Hotel Chamda Ghar, Madan Gang Kishan Ghar, Ajmer, Raj.
----Petitioner
Versus
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. R.P. Garg For Respondent(s) : Ms. Shikha Parnami For the State : Mrs. Meenakshi Pareek, P.P.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA
/ Order
13/08/2018
Instant petition has been preferred under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to assail the order dated 09.02.2018 passed by the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Kishangarh, Ajmer, in Criminal Case No.450/2013.
Petitioner had issued a cheque, which on presentation, had bounced. Petitioner appeared before the trial Court and had furnished bail bonds and, subsequently, bail bonds were forfeited and proceedings were initiated against petitioner under Section 446 Cr.P.C. Thereafter, the petitioner was declared as absconder and the arrest warrants were issued against the petitioner.
Considering the fact that the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is bailable offence and the proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act are to be tried in
(2 of 3)
[CRLMP-1590/2018]
summary manner or by following procedure of summons case, this Court on 22.03.2018 had passed the following order :-
“The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner since 2013 was continuously appearing before the trial Court. On 07.09.2013 when the case was fixed for recording statement of petitioner, due to illness the petitioner could not appear before the trial Court and, subsequently, warrant of arrest was issued. Counsel has further contended that subsequently, the petitioner was declared as a proclaimed offender.
It is contended that petitioner is being tried for bailable noncognizable offence, in summons case.
Issue notice to the respondent No.1, for 21.05.2018.
Subject to payment of Rs.30,000/-, as cost of litigation on 02.04.2018, the petitioner, on appearance before the trial Court shall be released on interim bail to the satisfaction of the trial Court.”
The ld. counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that in pursuance of the said order, the petitioner had appeared before the trial Court and had deposited cost.
The learned counsel appearing for the respondents has submitted that after the petitioner appeared and was released on interim bail, on six occasions, he had not appeared before the trial Court on the date fixed.
After hearing ld. counsel appearing for the petitioner and ld. Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and ld. counsel appearing for the respondent, the present present is disposed of, by issuing following directions :-
“a. That the interim bail bonds furnished by the petitioner shall enure during the course of the trial.
b. That in case, there are two consecutive default on the part of the petitioner to appear before the trial Court, his bail bonds shall be forfeited, and the Court shall proceed with the proceedings from the stage, whereby the petitioner has been declared as absconder.
(3 of 3)
[CRLMP-1590/2018]
c. That Rs.30,000/- deposited as cost shall be disbursed to the Legal Services Authority as the time and energy of the Court has been wasted because of the absence on the part of the petitioner.
d. That the conduct of the petitioner to abstain from the Court shall be considered by the Court below in future, while considering any prayer of the petitioner towards grant of bail.”
(KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA),J
ashok
3 issues framed by the court
Whether to grant conditional interim bail to a cheque bounce petitioner who absconded after release but committed multiple defaults.
Whether to forfeit bail bonds and proceed as an absconder upon further consecutive defaults.
Whether to disburse the deposited litigation cost to the Legal Services Authority due to petitioner's absence.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Matin Ahamad Thekedar
Rupesh Sharma
State Of Rajasthan
Kanwalsingh Ahluwalia
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
