Intro Summary

The Court of Sessions for Greater Mumbai at Mazgaon has granted post-conviction bail to Arvindkumar S. Mishra, the proprietor of Nirmala Enterprises, in a case arising under the Negotiable Instruments Act. The order, passed by H.H. Additional Sessions Judge K. P. Shrikhande on April 20, 2024, addressed the bail application (Criminal Bail Application No. 986 of 2024) filed after Mishra’s conviction by the trial court for the offence under Section 138 of the NI Act. The Appellate Court’s decision to grant bail hinged on the fact that the applicant had been on bail throughout the trial period and that the substantive sentence of imprisonment and the direction to pay compensation had already been suspended pending the outcome of the appeal.

Case Background and Conviction Details

The appellant, Arvindkumar S. Mishra, was convicted by the trial court in C.C. No. 5604188/SS/2019 by judgment dated March 14, 2024, for the offence of cheque dishonour under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The sentence imposed was two-fold:

1. Simple Imprisonment till the rising of the Court.
2. A direction to pay compensation of ₹5,00,379/- along with 9% simple interest per annum to the complainant (M/s. J. S. Building Material Suppliers Pvt. Ltd.) within one month.In default of paying the compensation, the accused was directed to undergo Simple Imprisonment for six months. The present bail application was a procedural step following the filing of Criminal Appeal No. 261 of 2024, challenging the conviction.

Arguments and Court’s Rationale (H.H. Addl. Sessions Judge K. P. Shrikhande)

The applicant’s advocate, Mr. Ashok Dubey, argued that since the appellant/accused had been on bail during the entire trial period, and given that he had formally challenged the conviction by filing the appeal (Criminal Appeal No. 261 of 2024), he should be released on bail. The underlying premise was that the substantive sentence of imprisonment and the direction to pay compensation had already been suspended by the Appellate Court pending the final disposal of the appeal.

The Court’s reasoning was concise and in line with established appellate practice in NI Act cases:

1. The appellant/accused was on bail during the trial period.
2. The appellant/accused has challenged the conviction by filing an appeal.
3. The substantive sentence of imprisonment and the direction to pay compensation have been suspended.

Based on these uncontroverted facts, the Court found that the applicant/accused was entitled to be released on bail, as his release would not prejudice the appeal process.

Bail Order Details

The Criminal Bail Application No. 986 of 2024 was allowed. Arvindkumar S. Mishra was ordered to be released on bail upon executing a Personal Recognizance (P.R.) bond of ₹25,000/- with surety in the like amount.

The order included a provision to facilitate the furnishing of security:

• The applicant was granted liberty to furnish a cash security in lieu of a solvent surety.
• The bail formalities (furnishing bail and surety) must be completed before the trial court within one month.

This conditional release ensures that the appellant’s liberty is secured while the Appellate Court examines the merits of his challenge against the conviction and the compensation order.