Punjab-Haryana High Court
Joginder Pal vs Gurwinder Singh on 21 March, 2025
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:038706
CRM-M-15652-2025 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
130
CRM-M-15652-2025 (O&M)
Date of decision: 21.03.2025
Joginder Pal
....Petitioner
Versus
Gurwinder Singh
....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR
Present: Mr. Tajinder Pal Singh Makkar, Advocate
for the petitioner.
HARPREET SINGH BRAR J. (Oral)
1. The present petition has been filed under Section 528 of
BNSS, 2023 for quashing of order dated 21.11.2024 passed by learned
Sessions Judge, Sri Muktsar Sahib in complaint No.CRA-76/2024, vide
which bail order of the petitioner was cancelled and his bail/surety
bonds were forfeited to the State and notice to his surety was issued.
Further prayer has been made to set-aside the order dated 05.04.2024
(Annexure P-3), passed by learned Sessions Judge, Sri Muktsar Sahib in
CRA-76 of 2024, titled as "Joginderpal vs Gurwinder Singh", whereby
the petitioner is directed to deposit Rs.1,10,000/- i.e. 20% of the
compensation amount awarded by learned trial Court vide judgment of
conviction and order of sentence dated 15.03.2024, passed by learned
Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Gidderbaha.
2. The brief facts of the case are that a complaint was filed by
the respondent/complainant against the petitioner under Section 138 of
1 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:038706
the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short 'the Act') on the ground
of dishonouring of cheque bearing No.758275 dated 30.10.2018
amounting to Rs.5,50,000/- issued in favour of the
complainant/respondent by the petitioner in discharge of the liability.
Vide judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 15.03.2024,
the petitioner was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for a period of one year and was further directed to pay
compensation to the tune of Rs.5,50,000/-, within 30 days from the date
of order. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred an appeal against the said
judgment of conviction and order of sentence before the learned
Sessions Judge, Sri Muktsar Sahib and the learned Sessions Judge, Sri
Muktsar Sahib vide order dated 05.04.2024, suspended the sentence of
the petitioner subject to depositing 20% of the compensation amount
within two months from the date of order.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, contends that
the learned Lower Appellate Court failed to appreciate the facts in the
right perspective and imposed the condition to deposit 20% of the
compensation and such a condition is illegal, arbitrary and in violation
of the law as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Jamboo
Bhandari vs. M.P. State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. and
others", 2013 (12) SCALE 611.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the
petitioner was regularly appearing before the learned Lower Appellate
Court while he was on bail, but due to some unavoidable circumstances,
2 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:038706
he could not appear before the learned Lower Appellate Court on
21.11.2024 and his bail order was cancelled and bail/surety bonds were
forfeited to the State and notice to his surety was issued vide order dated
21.11.2024 and when he filed an application for anticipatory bail before
the learned Lower Appellate Court, the same was also dismissed on
09.01.2025. Thus, aggrieved by the aforesaid order(s) dated 05.04.2024
(Annexure P-3) and dated 21.11.2024 (Annexure P-5), he has
approached this Court by way of instant petition. It is contended that the
order dated 21.11.2024 is liable to be set-aside on the ground of
unintentional non-appearance of the petitioner due to some unavoidable
circumstances. It is also submitted that the petitioner undertakes to
appear before the Court below on each and every date.
5. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and after
perusing the record of the case with his able assistance, present petition
is being decided in limine without issuing notice to the respondent in
order to save judicial time of the Court and also the litigation costs of
the respondent.
6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jamboo Bhandari's case
(supra), speaking through Justice Abhay S. Oka, has held as follows:-
"6. What is held by this Court is that a purposive
interpretation should be made of Section 148 of the N.I.
Act. Hence, normally, Appellate Court will be justified in
imposing the condition of deposit as provided in Section
148. However, in a case where the Appellate Court is
satisfied that the condition of deposit of 20% will be
unjust or imposing such a condition will amount to
deprivation of the right of appeal of the appellant,
3 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:038706
exception can be made for the reasons specifically
recorded.
7. Therefore, when Appellate Court considers the
prayer under Section 389 of the Cr.P.C. of an accused, who
has been convicted for offence under Section 138 of the
N.I. Act, it is always open for the Appellate Court to
consider whether it is an exceptional case which warrants
grant of suspension of sentence without imposing the
condition of deposit of 20% of the fine/compensation
amount. As stated earlier, if the Appellate Court comes to
the conclusion that it is an exceptional case, the reasons
for coming to the said conclusion must be recorded."
7. A perusal of the order dated 21.11.2024 reflects that the
learned Lower Appellate Court proceeded to pass the extreme order of
cancellation of bail. Many a times, the accused can be prevented by
sufficient reasons to put an appearance before the Court on a given date
and, therefore, it necessarily cannot be construed as a deliberate and
wilful absence. The explanation offered for non-appearance before the
learned Lower Appellate Court is justified and, therefore, the same is
accepted.
8. While the scheme of criminal justice system necessitates
curtailment of personal liberty to some extent, it is of the utmost
importance that the same is done in line with the procedure established
by law to maintain a healthy balance between personal liberty of the
individual-accused and interests of the society in promoting law and
order. Such procedure must be compatible with Article 21 of the
Constitution of India i.e. it must be fair, just and not suffer from the vice
4 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:038706
of arbitrariness or unreasonableness.
9. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the
present petition is allowed. The order dated 21.11.2024, vide which bail
order of the petitioner was cancelled and bail/surety bonds were
forfeited to the State and notice to his surety was issued, as well as the
order dated 05.04.2024 whereby the condition of depositing 20% of the
compensation amount awarded has been imposed upon the petitioner
while granting suspension of sentence, are hereby set-aside.
10. The learned Lower Appellate Court is directed to re-
examine the case after granting an opportunity to the petitioner to make
submissions regarding the exceptional circumstances and decide
whether it is an appropriate case that warrants waiver of the requirement
of deposit of 20% of the compensation awarded by learned Court below
and thereafter, decide the matter afresh in accordance with law in the
light of judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jamboo
Bhandari's case (supra).
11. The petitioner is directed to appear before the learned
Lower Appellate Court within a period of 02 weeks from today and on
doing so, he shall be admitted to bail on furnishing bail bonds and
surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned Lower Appellate Court,
along with costs of Rs.10,000/- to be deposited with PGIMER Poor
Patient Welfare Fund, Chandigarh, for wasting precious time of the
Court.
5 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:038706
12. The receipt of payment of costs imposed upon the
petitioner must be presented before learned Lower Appellate Court.
Learned Court below is directed to grant bail to the petitioner only upon
verification of the payment of said costs.
13. However, in case, the petitioner fails to surrender before the
learned Lower Appellate Court within the stipulated time period, the
interim protection granted by this Court, shall be deemed to be vacated.
(HARPREET SINGH BRAR)
JUDGE
21.03.2025
yakub
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
6 of 6
