In a significant procedural development, the Court of Sessions for Greater Mumbai, at Mazgaon, has granted bail to an applicant convicted under the Negotiable Instruments (NI) Act, 1881. This decision, issued on May 13th, 2024, in Criminal Bail Application No. 1027 of 2024 arising from Criminal Appeal No. 272 of 2024, focuses on the principles governing post-conviction release when a sentence is challenged on appeal. The applicant, Kartikan, a partner in M/s. DAG-O-TOOLS, was convicted and sentenced by the trial court in a case filed by the complainant, Chandraprakash Pukhraj Bhansali.
The Conviction and Sentence
The case originated from C.C. No. 1502/SS/2019, where the learned trial court delivered a judgment and order on February 14th, 2024. The court found both the company, M/s. DAG-O-TOOLS (Accused No. 1), and Kartikan (Accused No. 2) guilty of an offense under Section 138 read with Section 141 of the NI Act.
The conviction resulted in a substantive sentence for Kartikan (Accused No. 2): he was sentenced to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment (RI) for a term of two months. Furthermore, both the company and Kartikan were jointly directed to pay a significant sum of ₹41,45,615/- to the complainant as compensation. This payment was mandated to be completed within three months from the date of the judgment. Critically, the order stipulated a default clause: in case of non-payment of the compensation amount, Kartikan would have to undergo an additional Simple Imprisonment for a period of two months.
The Grounds for Post-Conviction Bail
Following the conviction, Kartikan filed an appeal (Criminal Appeal No. 272 of 2024) to challenge the legality and propriety of the trial court’s judgment. Simultaneously, he sought bail pending the disposal of this appeal, which is common practice when challenging a substantive jail sentence.
The bail application was heard by the Additional Sessions Judge, K. P. Shrikhande, who considered the arguments presented by Ms. Sujata Seth, the learned advocate for the appellants. The core arguments accepted by the Sessions Court revolved around two practical and procedural points:
- Prior Conduct: The applicant, Kartikan, was on bail throughout the entire period of the trial. This fact suggests that he did not misuse his liberty, evade the court process, or pose a flight risk during the trial phase. Courts generally view this prior compliance favorably.
- Suspension of Sentence: Because the applicant filed the Criminal Appeal, the substantive sentence of imprisonment and the direction to pay compensation had been suspended pending the outcome of the appeal. Once the sentence is suspended, the immediate justification for keeping the convicted person in custody is removed.
Based on these considerations, the court formed the view that since the sentence was suspended and the applicant had an established record of being on bail during the trial, he was eligible to be released on bail while his appeal was being decided.
The Order for Release
The Court consequently allowed Criminal Bail Application No. 1027 of 2024. Kartikan (Accused No. 2) was ordered to be released on bail upon executing a Personal Recognizance (P.R.) bond of ₹40,000/- with a surety in the like amount.
To facilitate the process, the court granted the following provisions:
- The appellant was given a period of one month to furnish the bail before the trial court.
- Significantly, liberty was given to the appellant to furnish cash security in lieu of a solvent surety. This provision is often included to ease the process for applicants who may find it challenging to quickly produce a suitable solvent surety.
This order ensures that Kartikan’s liberty is secured while his challenge to the conviction under the NI Act proceeds through the appellate process, aligning with the principle that an appeal should not be rendered infructuous by the premature execution of the sentence.