The Court of Sessions for Greater Mumbai, Mazgaon, has granted bail to an appellant convicted in a case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments (NI) Act, 1881. The order, passed by Additional Sessions Judge K. P. Shrikhande on March 4, 2024, in Criminal Bail Application No. 286 of 2024, allows the convicted individual, Niyaz Ahmed M. Qureshi, to be released on bail while his appeal challenging the conviction is pending. The bail application was filed in the background of Criminal Appeal No. 76 of 2024, where the legality and propriety of the trial court’s judgment were called into question.

The applicant, Niyaz Ahmed M. Qureshi, was previously convicted by the learned trial court on January 5, 2024. The conviction was for the offense punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, which deals with the dishonour of a cheque for insufficiency of funds. Following the conviction, the trial court had sentenced the applicant to suffer Simple Imprisonment till the rising of the Court and to pay a fine amount of Rs. 1,70,000/- within two months. Failure to pay the fine would result in a further Simple Imprisonment of six months. This punishment is standard for offenses under the NI Act, which primarily focuses on ensuring the credibility of commercial transactions involving cheques.

The application for bail was presented before the Sessions Court on the grounds that the applicant was challenging the conviction by filing an appeal. Crucially, the defense argued, and the Court acknowledged, that the applicant had been on bail throughout the entire period of the trial. The continuity of liberty, coupled with the fact that the applicant had taken the legal step of appealing the verdict, was a decisive factor in the Sessions Judge’s deliberation. The appearance for the applicant was handled by Ld. Adv. Rohan Samant, while the State was represented by Ld. Addl. P.P. Mr. Kishor Tadavi. Respondent No. 1, MSA Trust, the original complainant, was not represented during the hearing.

In its concise but significant order, the Sessions Court noted that since the applicant was already on bail during the trial and had now filed an appeal against the conviction, and given that the substantive sentence of imprisonment and fine had been suspended during the pendency of the appeal (a common practice to prevent an appeal from becoming infructuous), the applicant was eligible to be released on bail. The judicial view in such cases is that if an appellant was not considered a flight risk or a danger to society during the long course of the trial, they should ordinarily be granted bail pending the final disposal of their appeal, especially when the substantive sentence has been put on hold.

The Court, therefore, allowed Criminal Bail Application No. 286 of 2024. The order directed that the appellant/accused, Niyaz Ahmed M. Qureshi, be released on bail upon executing a Personal Recognizance (P.R.) bond of Rs. 20,000/- with surety in the like amount. The Court granted the applicant a period of one month to furnish the requisite bail before the trial court. To ensure immediate relief, the order also allowed the applicant the liberty to furnish a provisional cash bail for one month, thereby preventing further detention while the necessary sureties are arranged. This decision underscores the legal principle that filing an appeal against a conviction suspends the operation of the sentence, and bail should typically be granted, reflecting the “innocent until proven guilty” standard even after a trial court conviction, pending appellate review. The order effectively grants the applicant conditional freedom while the higher court examines the merits of his challenge to the cheque dishonour conviction.