Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Chhattisgarh · body

2026 DAILYLAW 31212 (CHH)

NANDKISHOR SHARMA v. BHOJRAM GARG

CRMP/2176/2026 · 2026-08-18

Shri Narendra Kumar Vyas

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 CGHC010320372026 2026:CGHC:36997 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 2176 of 2026 Nandkishor Sharma S/o Late Shri Chhedilal Sharma Aged About 63 Years Occupation Retired Employee, R/o Plot No. 14, Royal Town, Mopka, Police Station Sarkanda, Tehsil And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus Bhojram Garg S/o Late Shri Balaram Garg Aged About 64 Years R/o Village Devari, Police Station, Tehsil And District Mungeli Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Rakesh Sahu, Advocate. For Respondent : None. Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas Order on Board 19/08 /2026 1. This petition has been filed by the applicant under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, assailing the interim order dated 30.06.2026 passed by the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Mungeli in Criminal Case No. 29/2026, whereby, the applicant has been directed to deposit 20% of the compensation amount of Rs.20,00,000/- i.e. Rs.4,00,000/- as a condition for availing the benefit of suspension of sentence and release on bail. 2. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the power conferred upon the appellate Court under Section 148(1) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is discretionary in nature, therefore, the direction for depositing 20% of the compensation amount ought not ARUN KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by ARUN KUMAR DEWANGAN Date: 2026.08.19 18:33:48 +0530 2 to have been imposed mechanically and would pray for quashing of the impugned order dated 30.06.2026. 3. From perusal of records, it is quite vivid that the learned appellate Court, while admitting the appeal has already exercised its discretion to suspend the sentence subject to the condition of deposit of 20% of the compensation amount whereas no exceptional circumstance has been brought to the notice of this Court warranting interference by this Court. 4. In view of the aforesaid, this Court finds no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order dated 30.06.2026 passed by the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Mungeli. However, the applicant is directed to pay 15% of the compensation amount of Rs. 20 lacs i.e. Rs. 3 lacs awarded by the trial Court instead of 20% of Rs. 20 lacs i.e. Rs. 4 lacs. Sd/- (Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge Arun