9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (2) TMI 973 - HC - Indian LawsSeeking grant of Anticipatory Bail - Compliance with the condition imposed by the learned Appellate Court to deposit 20% of the compensation amount in the form of bank draft within 60 days - HELD THAT - This Court is of the considered opinion that once bail was granted to the petitioner on the condition of deposit of 20% within a period fo 60 days and thereafter a period of about 1 years has elapsed and the petitioner has not deposited 20% of the compensation amount, the learned Appellate Court was justified in cancelling the bail because express condition of bail has been violated by the petitioner. The reliance made by the petitioner on Vivek Sahni's 2019 (7) TMI 1561 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT , is also of no avail in view of the fact that now the law has been laid down by the Hon ble Supreme Court Surinder Singh Deswal and Ors. 2020 (1) TMI 263 - SUPREME COURT . Learned counsel for the respondent has brought to the notice of this Court that against the judgment passed by this Court in Vivek Sahni's case, an SLP was also preferred which has been dismissed by the Hon ble Supreme Court on 2.12.2019. However, a perusal of the same would show that the said SLP has been dismissed in limine and special leave was not granted and therefore, it does not lay down any law. However, on the other hand, the Hon ble Supreme Court in Surinder Singh Deswal and Ors. laid down the law in this regard by observing that if a condition of bail which was granted under Section 148 of the Act is violated and the amount is not deposited, then the bail is liable to be vacated. Petition dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Anticipatory bail petitions. 2. Quashing of the order imposing a condition to deposit 20% of the compensation amount under Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. 3. Legality of the condition imposed by the appellate court. 4. Non-compliance with the condition of bail and its consequences. Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Anticipatory Bail Petitions: The petitioner sought anticipatory bail through three petitions (CRM-M-3833-2021, CRM-M-4733-2021, and CRM-M-4777-2021) corresponding to the subject matter of three other petitions seeking quashing of the order imposing a condition to deposit 20% of the compensation amount. The petitioner was previously convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced to one year of imprisonment, along with a directive to pay compensation of ?37,50,000. 2. Quashing of the Order Imposing a Condition: The petitioner challenged the appellate court's order dated 23.05.2019, which required a deposit of 20% of the compensation amount within 60 days as a condition for bail. The petitioner argued that this condition was unreasonable and sought its quashing under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 3. Legality of the Condition Imposed by the Appellate Court: The appellate court's order was based on Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, as amended by Act No. 20 of 2018. The petitioner failed to deposit the required amount by the stipulated date, leading to the cancellation of bail by the appellate court on 12.01.2021. The court observed that the petitioner consistently disobeyed the directions and did not deposit the amount despite multiple extensions. 4. Non-Compliance with the Condition of Bail and Its Consequences: The petitioner cited the judgment in Vivek Sahni and another Vs. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd., 2019, arguing that bail once granted under Section 148 of the Act cannot be canceled for non-payment of 20% of the compensation amount. However, the respondent countered this by referring to a later judgment in Surinder Singh Deswal and Ors. Vs. Virender Gandhi, where the court held that non-compliance with the condition of suspension of sentence is sufficient to vacate the suspension. The Supreme Court upheld this view, stating that the appellate court has the jurisdiction to vacate the suspension of the sentence due to non-compliance with the condition. Conclusion: The High Court dismissed all six petitions, holding that the appellate court was justified in canceling the bail due to the petitioner's failure to deposit 20% of the compensation amount within the stipulated time. The court emphasized that the condition imposed by the appellate court was reasonable and in accordance with the statutory provisions under Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The court also noted that the plea regarding the inability to pay due to the COVID-19 epidemic was not acceptable as the petitioner had repeatedly sought extensions but failed to comply. The reliance on Vivek Sahni's case was deemed ineffective in light of the Supreme Court's ruling in Surinder Singh Deswal and Ors., which clarified the legality of canceling bail for non-compliance with the conditions imposed under Section 148 of the Act.
|
