1 2025:CGHC:58184 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 3646 of 2025 Bhavesh Thakkar S/o Mansuk Lal Thakkar Aged About 40 Years R/o M/s Ganga Maiyya Kiaran Store, Tikarapara, Budhwari Bazar, Distt.- Balod, C.G. Presently Residing At - Near Dabholi Village, Infront Of B.R.T.S., Sangam Heights, P.S. - Dabholi, Surat, Gujrat ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Nitesh Rayacha S/o Shri Vijay Rayacha Aged About 40 Years R/o Falt No. Bar / S 504 City Heights Residency, Kailashpuri, Raipur, Distt.- Raipur, C.G. 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate, Distt. Raipur, C.G. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pragalbha Sharma, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Ms. Pragya Shrivastava, Dy. G.A. Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board 01/12/2025 1. Heard on admission. 2. Admit. 2 3. With the consent of the parties, the present petition is heard finally at motion stage. 4. This CRMP has been filed under Section 528 of the BNSS against the impugned order dated 25.09.2025 by the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur (C.G.) in Criminal Appeal No. 453/2025 by which the application filed by the petitioner under Section 430 of BNSS has been allowed subject to condition of deposit of 20% of the compensation amount. 5. It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act 1881 (for short “the Act of 1881”) and sentenced with Simple Imprisonment of six months and to pay fine of Rs. 8,00,000/- with default stipulation. It is submitted that the petitioner/accused filed application under Section 430 of BNSS before the Appellate Court in Criminal Appeal No. 453/2025 for suspension of sentence and grant of bail which was allowed by the learned appellate court but apart from the condition for furnishing personal bond and surety, condition of depositing Rs. 1,60,000/-, i.e. 20% of the fine amount of Rs. 8,00,000/- has been imposed. It is further submitted that suspension of sentence of convicted person also comes under the purview of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and any such condition cannot be imposed which can deprive him from his personal liberty. In this regard, he relied upon the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Jamboo Bhandari Vs. M.P. State 3 Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. & Others passed in Criminal Appeal Nos. 2741 of 2023 (@ SLP (CRL.0 No. 4927 of 2023). Hence, it is prayed that condition with regard to the payment of 20% of fine amount stipulated by the learned appellate court, may be set aside. He has also placed his reliance upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Anjali Kumari Vs. The State of Bihar and Another passed in CRM No. 5495/2023 @ SLP(Crl.) No. 6298 of 2024. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent has opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner by contending that there is no illegality or infirmity in the order of the appellate court and the present petition is liable to be dismissed. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record with utmost circumspection. 8. In the case of Jamboo Bhandari (supra) Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in para 9 and 10 as under: “9. We disagree with the above submission. When an accused applies under Section 389 of the Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence, he normally applies for grant of relief of suspension of sentence without any condition. Therefore, when a blanket order is sought by the appellants, the Court has to consider whether the case falls in exception or not. 10. In these cases, both the Sessions Courts and the High Court have proceeded on the erroneous premise that deposit of minimum 20% amount is an absolute rule which does not accommodate any exception.” 4 9. Further in the matter of Anjali Kumari (Supra), it has been held that the process of criminal law could not be utilized for arm twisting and money recovery. Particularly, while opposing the prayers for bail. In such circumstances, we have no hesitation to hold that the very condition to get released, the petitioner should pay 20% of the cheque amount, cannot be sustained. The upshot of the discussion is that the impugned orders invite modification in relation to the said condition. 10. In the present case, learned appellate court has imposed mandatory condition for payment of 20% of fine amount against the petitioner for suspension of sentence imposed against him, whereas as per provisions of Section 148 of the Act of 1881, imposition of such condition is not mandatory, as observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jamboo Bhandari (supra). 11. The provisions of Section 148 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is directive and not mandatory. Therefore, it is the discretion of the Court to impose the fine. However, the condition to deposit 20% of the fine amount appears to be excessive. 12. Considering the entire factual matrix of the case, submissions of the counsels, perusing the orders passed by the court below, the condition to deposit 20% of fine amount is reduced to deposit of Rs. 1,00,000/- (One Lakh Rupees). 13. The sentence of simple imprisonment for 6 months awarded by the trial court shall remain suspended during the pendency of this 5 petition on condition of depositing Rs. 1,00,000/- (One Lakh Rupees) within a period of 45 days from today. 14. Accordingly, the present petition is partly-allowed. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE Madhurima