The Court of Sessions for Greater Mumbai, at Mazgaon, has granted bail to Johnson Xavier Fransis after he was convicted in a case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments (NI) Act, 1881. The order, delivered by H.H. Additional Sessions Judge K. P. Shrikhande (C.R. No. 87) on February 8, 2024, in Criminal Bail Application No. 274 of 2024, was predicated on the crucial fact that the substantive sentence of imprisonment and the fine imposed by the trial court had been suspended pending the hearing of his criminal appeal. This ruling is standard practice in cheque bounce cases where the appellate court has provisionally stayed the sentence to allow the accused to pursue their legal challenge.

Conviction and Sentence Details

The applicant, Johnson Xavier Fransis, had been found guilty by the learned trial Court and convicted by its judgment and order dated January 11, 2024. The conviction was for the offense punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, commonly known as the cheque bounce offense. The sentence imposed by the trial court was twofold:

1. Imprisonment: To suffer Simple Imprisonment (SI) for two months.
2. Fine/Compensation: To pay a fine of ₹80,000/-. In default of payment of this fine, the accused was to suffer Simple Imprisonment for an additional one month. The court further directed that a compensation of ₹75,000/- be paid to the complainant, Shriram Chits (Maharashtra) Limited, out of the fine amount after the appeal period elapsed.

This conviction triggered the immediate need for the applicant to seek bail from the Sessions Court, as he was now a convicted person facing imprisonment while pursuing his appeal.

Judicial Reasoning for Granting Post-Conviction Bail

The applicant’s defense, represented by Ld. Advocate Ms. Anuradha Bagwe, argued that since the appellant was previously on bail throughout the duration of the trial, and having formally challenged the conviction and sentence through a Criminal Appeal (No. 71 of 2024), he should be granted post-conviction bail. The learned Addl. P.P., Mr. Kishor Tadavi, appeared for the State but did not successfully block the application, as the primary legal requirement for such bail was satisfied.

The Court’s decision was governed by the following key factors:

1. Prior Bail Status: The applicant was on bail during the entire period of the trial, demonstrating a history of adherence to judicial processes.
2. Appeal Filed: The appellant had formally filed an appeal to challenge the legality and propriety of the judgment of conviction.
3. Sentence Suspension: The most decisive factor was the confirmation that the substantive sentence of imprisonment and the sentence of fine have been suspended by the Appellate Court pending the final hearing of the appeal.

The Sessions Judge determined that once the Appellate Court has suspended the sentence, the purpose of keeping the accused in custody—to serve the sentence—is temporarily negated. Therefore, the Court viewed it as a fit case to release the appellant on bail while his appeal remains pending.

Conditions for Release on Bail

The Criminal Bail Application No. 274 of 2024 was consequently allowed. The Court ordered the release of the appellant/accused, Johnson Xavier Fransis, subject to the following conditions:

• P.R. Bond and Surety: The applicant must execute a Personal Recognizance (P.R.) bond of ₹15,000/- with surety in the like amount.
• Time for Furnishing Bail: The appellant/accused was directed to furnish bail before the trial Court within one month.
• Provisional Cash Bail: In a measure to facilitate prompt release, liberty was given to the appellant/accused to furnish provisional cash bail for one month, granting him time to arrange the solvent surety as required by the bond.

This order ensures that the appellant’s liberty is secured while the legal merit of his conviction is examined in the higher appellate forum, aligning with the standard judicial practice in cheque bounce cases where sentences are suspended pending appeal.