Partly allowed¶22

Lalit Jangid Son of Shri Mohanlal Jangid, v. Anil Kumar Garg Son of Shri Hariram

Rajasthan HC6 Mar 2026CRLMP/269/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CRLMP-269/2026, Rajasthan HC Jaipur, Justice Anil Kumar Upman, order dated 06/03/2026; Section 138 NI Act conviction; Section 430 BNSS suspension-of-sentence application; appellate court (Additional Session Judge No.1, Behror) condition of 20% deposit of compensation; relaxation sought on financial hardship grounds; condition reduced to deposit of 10% of cheque amount within one month; bail entitlement upon compliance; other conditions intact; petition partly allowed.

What did the court decide?

Condition of depositing 20% of the compensation amount modified; petitioner to deposit only 10% of the cheque amount within one month, upon which he shall be entitled to be released on bail; other conditions of the order dated 17.10.2025 remain intact; pending applications disposed of. ¶22

Lalit Jangid Son of Shri Mohanlal Jangid, Vs Anil Kumar… — Cheque Dishonour | Rajasthan HC (2026)

¶1

[2026:RJ-JP:9788]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 269/2026

¶4

Lalit Jangid Son Of Shri Mohanlal Jangid, Aged About 52 Years, Resident Of F-70, Ambedkar Nagar, Currently Residing At F-246 Ambedkar Nagar, Alwar, District Alwar, Rajasthan.

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

Anil Kumar Garg Son Of Shri Hariram, Aged About 53 Years, Resident Of Bayana, District Bharatpur, Currently Residing At Behror, Dist. Alwar At Present District Kotputli- Behror, Rajasthan.

¶8

State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor.

¶9

----Respondents

¶10

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajendra Prasad Gautam, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vijay Singh Yadav, PP

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order

¶12

06/03/2026

¶13

By way of filing the present Criminal Misc. Petition, a challenge has been made to the order dated 17.10.2025 passed by the learned Additional Session Judge No.1, Behror, District Alwar in Criminal Appeal No.24/2025.

¶14

Briefly stated, the facts of the present case are that after getting convicted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, the petitioner moved an appeal along with an application under Section 430 of BNSS, before the learned Appellate Court. While allowing the application under Section 430 of BNSS, the learned Appellate Court vide order dated 17.10.2025 imposed a condition upon the petitioner to deposit 20% of the compensation amount awarded by the trial Court.

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is a poor person and he does not have sufficient source

[2026:RJ-JP:9788]

[CRLMP-269/2026]

(2 of 2)

of income to even sustain himself. Learned counsel, thus, prayed that since the petitioner is facing financial crisis and is unable to satisfy the said condition of depositing 20% of the compensation amount, the said condition be relaxed.

¶20

Heard learned counsel for the parties at bar. Perused the material as made available to this Court.

¶21

It is settled law that the imposition of condition for deposition of 20% of the compensation amount is discretionary and thus, keeping in view the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is facing financial hardship and is not in position to deposit 20% of the compensation amount awarded by the trial Court, this Court deems it appropriate to modify the aforementioned condition imposed in the order dated 17.10.2025.

¶22

Accordingly, the instant Criminal Misc. Petition is partly allowed. The condition of deposition of 20% of the compensation amount imposed upon the petitioner vide order dated 17.10.2025 is modified. Now, the petitioner would deposit only 10% of the cheque amount instead of 20% of the compensation amount as awarded by the learned trial Court within a period of one month from the date of this order. The petitioner, upon fulfilling the condition of deposition of 10% of the cheque amount within stipulated time shall be entitled to be released on bail. It is however made clear that the other conditions imposed in the order dated 17.10.2025 shall remain intact.

¶23

All pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of.

¶24

(ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J

¶25

MADAN MEENA /94

Lalit Jangid Son of Shri Mohanlal Jangid, v. Anil Kumar Garg Son of Shri Hariram

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lalit Jangid Son of Shri Mohanlal Jangid, v. Anil Kumar Garg Son of Shri Hariram

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sharafat Khan S/O Shri Inayat Khan Vs State of Rajasthan

Kishan Lal Yadav Son of Shri Sohan Lal Yadav Vs State of Rajasthan

Lokesh Kumar Meena S/O Shri Ghanshyam Prasad Meena, Vs State of Rajasthan

Asgar @ Bhukkad S/O Kalu Khan Vs State of Rajasthan

Lalit Jangid Son of Shri Mohanlal Jangid, Vs Anil Kumar Garg Son of Shri Hariram

Lalit Jangid Son of Shri Mohanlal Jangid, Vs Anil Kumar Garg Son of Shri Hariram