[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ravinder Kumar Alias Ravinder Garg And ... vs Vikas Madaan on 15 December, 2025
CRM-M-5372-2025 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
360
CRM-M-5372-2025 (O&M)
Date of decision : 15.12.2025
Ravinder Kumar @ Ravinder Garg and another ...Petitioners
Versus
Vikas Madaan ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA
Present:- Mr. Onkar Rai, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Mr. Subhashish Kukreti, Advocate
for the respondent.
*****
MANISHA BATRA, J. (Oral)
1. The instant petition has been filed by the petitioners under
Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNSS')
seeking quashing of order dated 05.12.2024 (Annexure P-6), passed by the
Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda in Criminal Appeal
No. 374 of 2024, titled as Ravinder Kumar @ Ravinder Garg vs. Vikas
Madaan, whereby, non-bailable warrants have been issued against the
petitioner and also for quashing of order dated 16.08.2024 (Annexure P-5),
passed by the same Court, whereby while suspending the sentence of the
petitioner, he had been directed to deposit 20% of the compensation amount
as awarded by the learned trial Court within a period of 60 days from the
date of passing the order.
1 of 5
2. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioners that the
impugned orders are not sustainable in the eyes of law. The sentence of the
petitioner was suspended by the learned appellate Court, vide impugned
order dated 16.08.2024, subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of
Rs.1,00,000/- with one surety in the like amount. He was also directed to
deposit 20% of the compensation amount as awarded by the learned trial
Court within a period of 60 days. However, the petitioner could not furnish
bonds before the Court concerned. He was granted several extensions to do
the needful. Later, it came to light that the petitioner was in custody in
connection with FIR No. 90 of 2021 and that is why he could not furnish the
bonds. However, still the learned appellate Court did not accord him further
opportunity to furnish bail bonds and issued non-bailable warrants against
him. It is further argued that the learned appellate Court, while giving
direction to the petitioner to deposit 20% of the compensation amount, vide
order dated 16.08.2024, failed to consider the fact that the deposit of 20% of
the compensation amount was not absolute requirement for suspension of
sentence and this condition was to be imposed in exceptional circumstances.
Hence, it is urged that the impugned orders passed by the learned appellate
Court are liable to be set aside. To fortify his argument, he has placed
reliance upon the judgments passed by the co-ordinate Benches of this Court
in Abdul Rashid vs. Kuldeep Singh, CRM-M-3878-2024, decided on
24.01.2024, Sarif Mohammad @ Sareef Mohammad vs. Swaran Singh and
another, CRM-M-20840-2024, decided on 26.04.2024, Vikram Singh and
another vs. Nasar and another, CRM-M-6508-2024, decided on 08.02.2024
and Sahil Puri vs. Sonu Kumar and another, CRM-M-2503-2024, decided
on 18.01.2024.
2 of 5
3. Learned counsel for the respondent has argued that there is no
illegality or infirmity in the impugned orders. The petitioner had not
complied with the directions given by the learned appellate Court. He has
neither furnished bail bonds nor has deposited 20% of the compensation
amount so far. Hence, it is urged that the petition is liable to be dismissed.
4. This Court has heard the rival submissions.
5. On a perusal of the record, it is revealed that the learned trial
Court, vide judgment of conviction dated 11.07.2024, passed in a complaint
filed under Section 138 of N. I. Act, had held the petitioner guilty for
commission of offence punishable under the aforementioned section and
apart from awarding sentence to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period
of two years, had also directed him to pay compensation to the tune of
cheque amount i.e. Rs.46,20,000/-. The petitioner challenged the order
passed by the learned trial Court by filing aforesaid appeal before the
learned appellate Court and the appellate Court, vide impugned order dated
16.08.2024, suspended the sentence of petitioner, subject to his depositing
20% of the compensation amount with the trial Court and on furnishing bail
bonds as mentioned above.
6. So far as the challenge laid by the petitioner to the order dated
05.12.2024 is concerned, admittedly, his sentence was suspended by the
learned appellate Court on 16.08.2024 and he was ordered to be released on
bail on furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with one surety in
the like amount. However, since he was in custody in connection with
aforementioned FIR, he could not do so, which ultimately resulted into
passing of order dated 05.12.2024, whereby non-bailable warrants had been
issued against him. In the considered opinion of this Court, in the peculiar
3 of 5
circumstances as emanating from the record, the petitioner deserves to be
granted one more opportunity to furnish the bail bonds.
7. Now coming to the next prayer made by the petitioner, wherein
he has sought quashing of order dated 16.08.2024, whereby the learned
appellate Court had directed him to deposit 20% of the compensation
amount as awarded by the learned trial Court within a period of 60 days.
Reference in this regard can be made to the authority cited as Jamboo
Bhandari vs. M. P. State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. And
others : (2024) 1 SCC (Cri) 90, wherein it was observed by Hon'ble
Supreme Court that deposit of 20% of the compensation amount was not an
absolute requirement for suspension of sentence, if the Court is satisfied that
the condition of such deposit will be unjust or imposing of such a condition
will amount to deprivation of the right of appeal of the appellant. This
proposition of law is shown to have been followed by the co-ordinate
Benches of this Court in Abdul Rashid's case (supra) as well as afore cited
other similar cases. In the instant case, while imposing condition of deposit
of 20% of compensation amount, the learned appellate Court is not shown to
have given any opportunity to the petitioner to make submissions regarding
the exceptional circumstances warranting requirement of waiver of
depositing of 20% of compensation amount and is shown to have imposed
the said condition without the same. Therefore, keeping in view the settled
proposition of law to the effect that the appellate Court was firstly required
to consider as to whether the instant case falls within the exceptions
warranting grant of suspension of sentence without imposing condition of
deposit of 20% of compensation amount/fine, the impugned order dated
4 of 5
16.08.2024 cannot be stated to be sustainable to the extent to which the
condition of deposit of 20% of the compensation amount was imposed.
8. In view of the discussion made above, the present petition is
disposed of. The matter is remanded to learned appellate Court for deciding
the same afresh after re-examining the case by granting an opportunity to the
petitioner to make submissions regarding exceptional circumstances
warranting waiver of requirement of depositing 20% of the compensation
amount in pursuance of judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Jamboo Bhandari's case (supra) and irrespective of the outcome on the
issue of depositing 20% of the compensation amount, the petitioner shall be
granted one more opportunity to furnish bail/surety bonds to be imposed
upon him by the learned appellate Court.
9. The petitioner is directed to approach the learned appellate
Court within a period of 10 days from today.
15.12.2025 (MANISHA BATRA)
Waseem Ansari JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
5 of 5
