Bombay High Court
Srichandu Surapaneni S/O. ... vs L And T Finance Limited And Anr on 25 January, 2022
Bench: Prakash Deu Naik
501-ia-313-2022.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 313 OF 2022
IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1425 OF 2019
Srichandu Suprapaneni .. Applicant
v/s.
L & T Finance Limited
& Another .. Respondents.
Shri Gaurav Parkar i/b. Shri V. M. Dahake, for the Applicant.
Mr. Yashpal M. Thakur, for Respondent No.1.
Mr. H. J. Dedhia, APP for the Respondent-State.
Digitally signed
by SMITA CORAM : PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.
SMITA RAJNIKANT
RAJNIKANT
JOSHI
JOSHI
Date: DATE : 25th JANUARY, 2022
2022.01.25
16:33:41 +0530
PER COURT:
1. This is an application for bail preferred by
Applicant, who has been in custody from 20th January, 2022.
2. The Applicant was prosecuted for the offences
punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act. He
was acquitted vide Judgment and order dated 2 nd January 2019.
The complainant had preferred an appeal, challenging judgment of
acquittal before this Court. The said appeal was admitted. The said
appeal came up for hearing on 24 th September, 2019 and leave was
granted. Appeal was admitted on 24th September, 2019 and action
S.R.JOSHI 1 of 5
501-ia-313-2022.doc
under Section 390 of Cr. Procedure Code was directed. It was also
directed that Respondent - Accused shall mark his presence before
the learned Magistrate i.e. 33rd Ballard Pier, Mumbai within four
weeks and he shall be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail to the
satisfaction of the learned Magistrate. Respondent was further
directed to give undertaking that he shall appear before the Court
once in a six month on the date assigned by the learned Magistrate
and upon failure to attend any two consecutive dates, the learned
Magistrate shall make report to the High Court and the prosecution
will be at liberty to seek cancellation of bail.
3. In pursuance to the aforesaid order, the applicant
had appeared before the learned Magistrate and executed bail bond
on 20th October, 2019. He was released on PR bond/ cash bond.
The PR bond indicates that applicant was to give an undertaking
that he will attend the Trial Court once in a six month on the date
of assigned by learned Magistrate.
4. Learned Advocate for the applicant submitted that
date was not assigned for appearing before the Trial Court and on
account of lock-down due to pandemic, the applicant did not
attend the Trial Court. Applicant, thereafter, learnt that non-
bailable warrant has been issued against the applicant by this
S.R.JOSHI 2 of 5
501-ia-313-2022.doc
Court. The applicant appeared before the Trial Court on 20 th
January, 2022 and preferred an application for bail. The said
application was rejected vide order dated 20th January, 2022.
Immediately thereafter, applicant preferred another application
before the Court of learned Magistrate, seeking bail, indicating that
the directions under Section 390 of Cr. P.C. were not complied.
Learned Magistrate by order dated 24th January, 2022 rejected the
said application. The applicant has been taken in custody on 20 th
January, 2022. He continues to be in custody.
5. Learned Advocate for the applicant submitted that
the learned Magistrate ought to have granted bail to the applicant
under the misconception that the applicant had not complied the
conditions of attendance as stipulated in the order dated 24 th
September, 2019, the applicant has been taken in custody.
6. Learned Advocate for Respondent No.1 submitted
that the applicant's bail was rejected on account of non-compliance
of the condition of giving an undertaking that Accused would
appear before the Trial Court once in a six months on the date
assigned by the learned Magistrate and that the applicant was
supposed to appear before the Trial Court.
7. It is apparent from the order passed by the learned
S.R.JOSHI 3 of 5
501-ia-313-2022.doc
Magistrate and the warrant issued against the applicant, it does not
appear that the report was submitted by the Trial Court to the High
Court about non-compliance of giving undertaking or appearing
before the Trial Court once in a six months. In fact, the bond was
executed in accordance under Section 390 of Cr. P. C. which also
indicated that applicant has to undertake to appear before the Trial
Court once in a six months in accordance with the order of this
Court. No date was specified as to when the applicant shall appear
before the Court in accordance with the order of this Court. It
appears that the warrant was issued from Registry of this Court in
accordance with order dated 24th September, 2019.
8. The complainant had submitted before the Trial
Court that the Accused be released on bail subject to condition that
he should furnish P R bond and surety.
9. It is noted that the applicant is in custody on
account of the fact that the appeal against acquittal has been
admitted by this Court and action of 390 Cr. P. C. was initiated
against him. In fact, applicant had already executed the bail bond
in relation to action 390 of Cr. P. C.
10. Considering all these aforesaid circumstances, this
application deserves to be allowed.
S.R.JOSHI 4 of 5
501-ia-313-2022.doc
ORDER
i. Interim Application No. 313 of 2022 is allowed;
ii. The applicant is directed to be released on bail
on executing P R Bond in the sum of Rs. 15,000/- with
one or more sureties in the like amount;
iii. The applicant is permitted to furnish cash bail
in the sum of Rs.15,000/- for a period of ten weeks in
lieu of surety.
iv. The Trial Court shall accept the cash bail
immediately.
v. Interim Application stands disposed of
accordingly.
11 The parties shall act on authenticated copy of
this order.
(PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.)
S.R.JOSHI 5 of 5
