Bail can be cancelled for not depositing relief amount: HC

CHANDIGARH: The Punjab and Haryana High Court has ruled that cancelling the suspension of sentence of convicts in cheque bounce cases following their failure to deposit 25 per cent compensation amount was perfectly legal and justified and did not warrant interference.

Saurabh Malik
Tribune News Service
Chandigarh, September 18

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has ruled that cancelling the suspension of sentence of convicts in cheque bounce cases following their failure to deposit 25 per cent compensation amount was perfectly legal and justified and did not warrant interference.

The ruling by Justice Mahabir Singh Sindhu came on a bunch of 28 petitions filed by Surinder Singh Deswal and other petitioners. They were seeking the setting aside of impugned orders passed by an Additional Sessions Judge cancelling the suspension of sentence on account of their failure to deposit 25 per cent compensation in terms of Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments (Amendment) Act, 2018.

Culling the facts from one of the cases, Justice Sindhu asserted the petitioners were held guilty under Section 138 of the Act by the trial court before being sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for two years. They were also directed to pay fine equal to the cheque amount, along with 1 per cent towards interest and litigation expenses within two months of the order.

Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the petitioners preferred appeals along with applications for suspension of sentence. The Appellate Court suspended the sentence of the petitioners subject to deposit of 25 per cent amount of compensation awarded by trial court. Even after several rounds of litigation, the petitioners did not deposit the amount. They, rather, avoided the proceedings before Appellate Court leading to the passing of impugned order.

Justice Sindhu asserted the sentence was suspended by the Appellate Court subject to deposit of 25 per cent amount. As such, it could not be said that sentence was suspended unconditionally or as a matter of course.

Justice Sindhu asserted when the sentence was suspended subject to certain conditions incorporated in the order, the same was required to be satisfied by the convict/appellant during pendency of the appeal. In case of violation of the conditions imposed, the Appellate Court could take the remedial measures, including cancellation of the bail.