NIRBHAYA SAINI vs NEERU AGARWAL

UKHC010171192026

2026:UHC:9663
Office Notes,
reports, orders
or proceedings
or directions
and Registrar’s
order with
Signatures

SL.
Date
No.

COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS

C528/2094/2026

Nirbhaya Saini
--Applicant

Versus
Neeru Agarwal
--Respondent

Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J.
Mr. S.K. Shandilya and Ms. Nancy
Singh, learned counsel for the applicant.
2. The present application under
Section 528 of the B.N.S.S. has been
filed seeking quashing of the order dated
st
06.04.2026 passed by the learned 1
Additional District and Sessions Judge,
Roorkee, District Haridwar, in Criminal
Appeal No. 36 of 2026, whereby the
applicant has been directed to deposit
10% of the fine/compensation amount
awarded by the learned trial court as a
condition for suspension of sentence and
grant of bail.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant
would submit that respondent no.
2/complainant instituted Complaint
Case No. 856 of 2015 against the
applicant under Section 138 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (in
short, ‘the N.I. Act’), before the learned
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Roorkee, District Haridwar. He would
further submit that, vide judgment and
order dated 09.03.2026, the learned trial

UKHC010171192026

2026:UHC:9663
court convicted the applicant under
Section 138 of the N.I. Act and sentenced
him to undergo six months’ simple
imprisonment and to pay a fine of
₹ 31,00,000/-; that, feeling aggrieved by
the aforesaid judgment and order, the
applicant preferred Criminal Appeal No.
36 of 2026 before the learned 1st
Additional District and Sessions Judge,
Roorkee, District Haridwar.
4. He would further submit that
during the pendency of the appeal, the
applicant moved an application seeking
suspension of execution of the judgment
and sentence dated 09.03.2026 and
grant of bail; that, the learned appellate
court, vide order dated 06.04.2026,
suspended the sentence and granted bail
to the applicant, subject to the condition
that he deposit 10% of the fine amount
imposed by the learned trial court.
Learned counsel would submit that the
applicant is aggrieved only by the
aforesaid condition, and the remaining
part of the impugned order is not under
challenge in the present application.
5. Learned counsel would further
submit that the discretion vested in the
appellate court under Section 148 of the
N.I. Act is required to be exercised
judiciously and in accordance with law;
that, the impugned order has been
passed without assigning any reasons for
imposing the condition requiring the
applicant to deposit 10% of the fine
amount; that, the appellate court was

UKHC010171192026

2026:UHC:9663
required to consider the relevant facts
and circumstances of the case before
imposing such a condition and could not
have done so mechanically.
6. Learned counsel would further
submit that Section 148 of the N.I. Act
empowers the appellate court to direct
the appellant to deposit a sum which
shall be a minimum of 20% of the fine or
compensation awarded by the trial court.
He would contend that the exercise of
such power must be in conformity with
the statutory provision and the law laid
down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court;
that, while considering an application for
suspension of sentence under Section
389 of the the Cr.P.C., the appellate
court is required to exercise its
discretion judiciously and record
appropriate reasons for the conditions
imposed, particularly where such
conditions are challenged as being
arbitrary or excessive.
7. Learned counsel would further
submit that the condition imposed by
the learned appellate court is harsh and
unsustainable in law, as no reasons have
been assigned in support thereof. In
support of his submissions, he has
placed reliance upon the judgment of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Muskan
Enterprises and Another v. The State of
Punjab and Another , reported in (2024)
20 SCC 85, wherein the Hon’ble
Supreme Court considered the scope of
the appellate court’s power under

UKHC010171192026

2026:UHC:9663
Section 148 of the N.I. Act and observed
that, once the appellate court considers
a deposit necessary, it may, in an
appropriate case, direct the appellant to
deposit an amount exceeding 20% of the
fine or compensation awarded by the
trial court, therefore, the impugned order
deserves to be set aside and the matter
reconsidered by the learned appellate
court in accordance with law.
8. Heard learned counsel for the
applicant and perused the material
available on record.
9. Section 148 of the N.I. Act
specifically empowers the appellate
court, in an appeal against conviction
under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, to
direct the appellant to deposit a sum
which shall be a minimum of 20% of the
fine or compensation awarded by the
trial court. The provision further
stipulates that such deposit shall be
made within the period prescribed
therein, subject to the statutory power of
the appellate court to extend the period
for sufficient cause.
10. In the present case, the learned
appellate court, while suspending the
sentence and granting bail to the
applicant, directed him to deposit 10% of
the fine amount imposed by the learned
trial court. The aforesaid condition, being
below the statutory minimum prescribed
under Section 148 of the N.I. Act,
requires reconsideration in the light of
the applicable statutory provision and

UKHC010171192026

2026:UHC:9663
the law laid down by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court.
11. Accordingly, the order dated
06.04.2026 passed by the learned 1st
Additional District and Sessions Judge,
Roorkee, District Haridwar, in Criminal
Appeal No. 36 of 2026, is hereby set
aside to the extent it imposes the
condition regarding deposit of 10% of the
fine amount. The matter is remitted to
the learned appellate court to reconsider
the question of deposit, in accordance
with Section 148 of the N.I. Act and the
law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court, after affording an opportunity of
hearing to the parties. The learned
appellate court shall pass an appropriate
order in accordance with law.
12. It is made clear that the remaining
part of the impugned order, whereby
the sentence has been suspended and
the applicant has been granted bail,
shall remain unchanged, subject to the
fresh order to be passed by the learned
appellate court in accordance with law.
13. In view of the foregoing discussion,
the present C-528 application stands
allowed in the above terms.
14. Pending applications, if any, also
stand disposed of.

MA
MTA
RANI
Digitally signed by MAMTA
RANI
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF
UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH
COURT OF UTTARAKHAND,
2.5.4.20=6a812005bebfcf46f2
44f3e584af1449e430ef900bf0
9a6d67ebbd642671329b,
postalCode=263001,
st=Uttarakhand,
serialNumber=5de1751a4f1d
9cabfd54852c9e68911ca8b66
dd26690a191648ab5d8dd004
ef0, cn=MAMTA RANI
Date: 2026.10.28 11:17:45
+05'30'

(Alok Mahra, J.)
27.10.2026
Mamta