2018 (5) TMI 2027 - HC - Indian Laws

Dishonor of Cheque - insufficiency of funds - case of applicant is that the order is against the statutory provision of law and realization of fine ought to have been stayed by the Appellate Court during the pendency of the appeal specially when the bail has been granted to the applicant - HELD THAT - It is evident that the Appellate Court may impose a condition while suspending the sentence, however, the power of imposing conditions is discretionary and the Court while suspending the sentence can always direct the applicant to deposit fine in the court but the amount of such condition must not be unreasonable, onerous and unjust so as to deprive the applicant from being released on bail. Admittedly, in the present case, the applicant has been convicted under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and in the circumstances of the case, he would be ordinarily granted bail during the trial in view of the facts that the offence is bailable. Even during the course of trial, he has been on bail, therefore, while exercise of appellate power, a person must not be made to suffer by imposing such condition for being released on bail, which may be onerous - In the case in hand, although the applicant has been directed to be released on bail but a pre-condition has been imposed to deposit 1/4th of amount of the fine of ₹ 75,00,000/- for suspension of sentence, which appears to be onerous and harsh. Pre-condition to deposit 1/4th of amount of the fine of ₹ 75,00,000/- for being released on bail being onerous and harsh is liable to be modified to the extent of only 10% of the fine of ₹ 75,00,000/- imposed by the appellate Court - Application allowed in part.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the order dated 22.03.2018 imposing the condition for suspension of sentence and release on bail.
2. Appropriateness of requiring the applicant to deposit 1/4th of the fine amount for bail.
3. Judicial discretion in imposing conditions for bail under Section 389 CrPC.
4. Reasonableness and fairness of the compensation amount under Section 357 CrPC.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the order dated 22.03.2018 imposing the condition for suspension of sentence and release on bail:
The applicant challenged the order dated 22.03.2018 by the Sessions Judge Ist, Agra, which imposed a condition for bail requiring the deposit of 1/4th of the fine amount of ?75,00,000/-. The applicant argued that this condition was against statutory provisions and should have been stayed during the appeal.

2. Appropriateness of requiring the applicant to deposit 1/4th of the fine amount for bail:
The applicant contended that the condition to deposit ?18,75,000/- as a pre-condition for bail was unreasonable and unjust, making the appeal process futile. The court considered precedents, including the cases of Stanny Felix Pinto Vs. Jangid Builders Pvt. Ltd. and another, and Dilip S. Dhanukar Vs. Kotak Mahindra Company Limited and another, which emphasized that conditions for bail should be reasonable and not arbitrary. The court found the imposed condition to be onerous and harsh.

3. Judicial discretion in imposing conditions for bail under Section 389 CrPC:
Section 389 CrPC allows the appellate court to suspend the sentence and release the appellant on bail, with conditions. The court referred to the principle that conditions for bail should not be excessively onerous, as established in cases like Keshab Narayan Banerjee Vs. State of Bihar and Sheikh Ayub Vs. State of M.P. The court held that while the appellate court has the discretion to impose conditions, these should not be so burdensome as to effectively deny bail.

4. Reasonableness and fairness of the compensation amount under Section 357 CrPC:
Section 357 CrPC allows the court to order compensation from the fine imposed. The court noted that the compensation amount should be reasonable and not arbitrary, considering the accused's capacity to pay. The court cited the judgment in Dilip S. Dhanukar, which highlighted that the compensation amount must be justified and not exceed what a civil court might award.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the condition to deposit 1/4th of the fine amount for bail was excessively onerous. It modified the condition to require the deposit of only 10% of the fine amount, i.e., ?7,50,000/-, along with a personal bond of ?20,000/- and two sureties of the like amount. The application under Section 482 CrPC was partly allowed, modifying the pre-condition for bail to a more reasonable amount.