Allahabad High Court
Chandrajeet Yadav vs State Of Up And Another on 15 July, 2019
Author: Rajiv Joshi
Bench: Rajiv Joshi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 72 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 27163 of 2019 Applicant :- Chandrajeet Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of Up And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Jitendra Prasad Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Rajiv Joshi,J.
Heard Sri Jitendra Prasad Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State.
Present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the order dated 17.6.2019 passed by the Sessions Judge/Fast Tack Court-II Banda in Criminal Appeal No. 15 of 2019 whereby the applicant was directed to be released on bail on furnishing security/bail bond subject to payment of 50% of the fine amount.
Appeal No. 15 of 2019 has been filed challenging the order dated 28.2.2018 passed by Special Judicial Magistrate-Ist, Banda whereby the applicant was convicted for rigorous imprisonment of one year and fine of Rs. 9,00,000/-.
The said order is under challenge in the present application so far as it imposed the condition for the payment of 50% of fine.
Contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that in view of the amendment in Section 148 of Negotiable Instrument Act (hereinafter referred to as Act), the appellate court may order the appellant to deposit a sum minimum 20% of the fine compensation awarded by the trial court. It is further contended by learned counsel for the applicant that condition imposed vide impugned order while granting bail is against the statutory provisions of law and such condition is unreasonable, unjust and onerous, which amounts to denial of bail.
Per contra, learned AGA contends that apart from sentence of imprisonment, fine was also imposed by trial court and the condition imposed for granting bail is as per Section 148 of the Act, whereby minimum 20% can be directed to be paid by the accused-applicant in an appeal filed against conviction under Section 138 of the Act.
I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record.
As per Section 148 (1) of the Act, the appellate court may order the appellant/applicant to deposit such amount, which shall be minimum of 20% of fine or compensation awarded by the trial court.
No doubt the appellate court has discretion to direct the appellant to deposit any amount exceeding to minimum 20%, but no reasoning has been given as to why the applicant was directed to deposit 50% of the fine while granting bail. The condition imposed by the appellate court appears to be onerous and virtually amounts to denial of bail.
In the case of Amit Nigam Vs. State of U.P. and Another, 2017 LawSuit (AII) 679, this Court has taken a similar view after considering the provisions of Section 357 and the provisions of Section 138 and 141 of the Act and several judgment of the Apex Court that the condition while granting bail should not be onerous.
In view of the above, the condition for depositing 50% of the fine for granting bail being erroneous and harsh is liable to be modified and is accordingly modified to the extent of 20% of the amount imposed by the trial court towards fine.
In the result, application is partly allowed with the aforesaid modification in the order 17.6.2019 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 15 of 2019. The order impugned is modified accordingly.
Order Date :- 15.7.2019 Noman