Sanjeev Kumar vs Sumer Chand And Another
2023 Latest Caselaw 1430 P&H

128      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                     AT CHANDIGARH

                                 CRM-M-3721 of 2023
                                 Date of Decision: January 23, 2023

Sanjeev Kumar                          ...Petitioner
Versus

Sumer Chand and another                ...Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA

Present:-   Mr. Inderjit Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.
                         ****

DEEPAK GUPTA, J.(Oral)

Petitioner was convicted under Section 138 of Negotiable

Instruments Act on 19.11.2019 in a Criminal Complaint No.2254 of 2018

by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Karnal. Vide order dated

21.11.2019, he was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a

period of one year and to pay an amount of `7 lacs as compensation to

the complainant.

Against this judgment of conviction and order of sentence,

he filed appeal. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal, while

admitting the appeal and granting bail to the petitioner, directed him to

deposit 20% of the cheque amount in the trial Court within a period of

two months vide order dated 20.12.2019. Petitioner deposited only an

amount of `60,000/- out of 20% of the cheque amount as per order dated

29.02.2020 and sought time to deposit the remaining amount. He failed

to do so and rather absented himself from proceedings on 05.03.2020 due

to which his bail was cancelled and bonds were forfeited to the State. He

applied for bail which was rejected on 17.11.2022.

By way of this petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.,

petitioner prays to quash order dated 05.03.2020 cancelling his bail and

1 of 2

order dated 17.11.2022 rejecting the bail petition.

It is conceded by learned counsel for the petitioner that 20%

of the cheque amount has not been deposited by the petitioner till date.

Not only the fact that petitioner failed to make compliance of the order

whereby his bail was admitted by the First Appellate Court, he even

absented himself from the proceedings.

In these circumstances, there is no reason to quash any of the

impugned orders.

Dismissed.

January 23, 2023                               (DEEPAK GUPTA)
renu                                                JUDGE

                   Whether reasoned/speaking:         Yes/No
                   Whether reportable:                Yes/No




                                      2 of 2