[2025:RJ-JP:18818] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 564/2025 Pradeep Singh S/o Late Shri Mahendra Singh, R/o Village Tyonga Ward Number 46 Tahsil, District Bharatpur. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through P.P. 2. Mukesh Kumar @ Mukesh Singh S/o Tej Singh, R/o Village Bhavanpura Jagheena Tehsil District Bharatpur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mukesh Pal Jadoun, Adv. With Mr. Anurag Chahar, Adv. For Respondent(s) For Complainant : : Mr. Onkar Singh Rajpurohit, PP Mr. Umesh Kumar Sharma, Adv. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR Order 05/05/2025 1. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 10.01.2025, whereby, the learned Additional Session Judge No.2, Bharatpur in Criminal Appeal No.04/2025, directed the petitioner to deposit 20% of the fine amount within a period of 60 days from 10.01.2025. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Court did not consider the petitioner's plea that he does not have sufficient means to pay the said amount. It is also contended that the Co-ordinate Bench in the matter of Suresh Kumar v. State of Rajasthan, S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 544/2025 dated 05/02/2025, Ram Kumar vs. Manish Kumar, S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 2745/2024 dated 08.07.2024 and Asha Devi vs. Narayan Keer, S.B. Criminal [2025:RJ-JP:18818] (2 of 3) [CRLMP-564/2025] Misc. Petition No. 7408/2024 dated 23.10.2024, set aside the condition to deposit 20% of the interim compensation. The petitioner submits that his case is squarely covered by the ratio laid down in the case of Jamboo Bhandari vs. M.P. State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. & Ors., (2023) 10 SCC 446, therefore, the condition imposed by the Appellate Court in the impugned order dated 10.01.2025 may be waived. 2. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has vehemently opposed the application and contended that the learned Appellate while considering the petitioner's plea, considered all the material placed before it and observed that the petitioner failed to provide his income tax returns, etc., and in the absence of this, the condition to deposit 20% of the fine amount was imposed. It is further contended that the petitioner filed a civil suit against Digamber Singh before the District and Sessions Court, Bharatpur and in the said suit, the petitioner, during cross-examination, admitted paying Rs. 2 crore 16 lakhs in cash to the defendant, apart from the payment of Rs. 21 lakhs, which shows that the petitioner has the capacity to pay the said amount. In the case of Jamboo Bhandari vs. M.P. State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. & Ors. (Supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court held that although the provision is directory, the condition to deposit 20% of the fine or compensation can only be waived in exceptional circumstances. Since the petitioner's case does not fall under such exceptional circumstances, it is contended that the present petition may be dismissed. 3. Heard and perused the material available on record. [2025:RJ-JP:18818] (3 of 3) [CRLMP-564/2025] 4. The Appellate Court after considering the plea of both the parties imposed 20% of the fine on the petitioner with the direction to deposit within a period of 60 days from the date of 10.01.2025. The Appellate Court observed that the petitioner failed to submit his income tax returns. In civil suit preferred by the petitioner against Digamber for specific performance in his cross-examination has deposed that he paid Rs. 21 lakhs to the defendant, apart from Rs. 2 Crore 16 lakhs in cash. Therefore, considering the above facts, I do not find that the petitioner's case falls under exceptional circumstances where the condition of depositing 20% of the fine amount or compensation should be waived. 5. Accordingly, the instant S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition is hereby dismissed. (PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J Ashwani Kr Srivastava /-11