Court No. - 12 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1395 of 2024 Revisionist :- Azhar Sultan Mirza Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Anuj Pandey,Kapil Misra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Abhishek Vishwakarma,Rajneesh Maurya,Ram Kumar Maurya Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J. (CMA No. 2 of 2024- First Application for Bail) 1. Heard Shri Anuj Pandey, learned counsel for revisionist, Shri R.K. Maurya, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record. 2. The present criminal revision has been preferred under Section 438/442 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 by the revisionist assailing the judgment and order dated 24.10.2024 passed by learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Court No. 12, Lucknow dismissing the criminal appeal preferred by the revisionist against the judgment and order dated 25.01.2024 passed by learned Additional Court No. 5, Lucknow in Complaint Case No. 16190 of 2021 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. 3 Learned counsel for revisionist has pressed application for bail in the pending revision. In the bail application, it is stated that according to the complainant, the revisionist/applicant had given three cheques for an amount of Rs.10 lakh each to opposite party no. 2, which has been dishonoured on account of the insufficient funds. The repeated cheques were given to the complainant and on each occasion all the same were dishonoured leading the opposite party no. 2 to file a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Notices were issued and the revisionist had appeared before the trial court and opposed the complaint. The Additional Court No. 5 by means of order dated 25.01.2024 has awarded a punishment has awarded the punishment of simple imprisonment for two years and fine of Rs.60,00,000/- and in default of payment of fine, he was further awarded punishment of simple imprisonment for six months. 4. Learned counsel for revisionist has vehemently urged that the revisionist may be granted bail and the revisionist is not in a position to deposit the entire amount in one go but he is ready and willing to pay the amount in installments. 5. Learned A.G.A. for the State as well as learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 has opposed the application for bail and submits that pursuant to the order of conviction, neither the revisionist surrendered before the court below nor deposited the mandatory amount prior to filing of the appeal and it is on this account that his appeal has been dismissed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Court No. 12, Lucknow. 6. In the present case also, this Court finds that there is no change of circumstances, inasmuch as, neither the revisionist has deposited the amount as directed the trial court nor surrendered before the trial court concerned. Consequently, there is no occasion to consider his application for bail at this stage. 7. Apart from the above, it is noticed that non-bailable warrant has also been issued by the trial court. 8. In light of the above, this Court does not find any merit in the application for bail and the same is hereby rejected. . (Alok Mathur, J.) Order Date :- 27.3.2025 Virendra Digitally signed by :- VIRENDRA KUMAR GUPTA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench