Gujarat HC Leaves Cheque-Dishonour Convict’s Warrant In Place After 30-Day Window To Seek Trial-Court Bail Expired

The petitioner was convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Padra, on 19 November 2025.

He was sentenced to two years’ imprisonment and directed to pay Rs. 45 lakh as compensation; the trial court also directed issuance of a warrant under Section 70 of the CrPC.

The petitioner, who was absent when judgment was delivered, intended to appeal and sought to have the warrant quashed or converted to a bailable warrant, and to be permitted to seek release on bail pending appeal.

He also stated that he was willing to deposit 20% of the compensation.

The State opposed the petition, relying on Bhoomi Exim, which held that the trial court’s power under Section 389(3) of the CrPC could not be exercised after the appeal limitation period had expired.

Section 389(3) of the CrPC permits the convicting court, where its statutory conditions are met, to release a convicted person on bail for the period needed to present an appeal and seek orders from the appellate court; the court relied on the rule that this power is limited to the applicable appeal-filing period.

Under Section 374(3) of the CrPC, an appeal from a conviction by a Magistrate lies to the Sessions Court, and Article 115(b) of the Limitation Act provides a 30-day limitation period for such an appeal.

The Court applied Bhoomi Exim (proprietary concern) v. State of Gujarat, which held that the trial court’s authority under Section 389(3) expires when that 30-day period ends and that an accused’s absence at pronouncement does not permit the court to exercise the power later.

The Court noted that Bhoomi Exim had been confirmed by the Supreme Court.

The petitioner was convicted and sentenced on 19 November 2025, but did not appear before the trial court to seek relief under Section 389(3).

Applying Bhoomi Exim, the Court held that the trial court’s power to grant provisional bail under that provision was confined to the 30-day period for filing an appeal to the Sessions Court.

The petitioner’s absence when judgment was delivered did not extend that period or permit him to seek the same relief later.

The Court therefore found the petition governed by Bhoomi Exim and without merit.

It did not quash or convert the warrant, grant protection from arrest, or provide the requested direction concerning an application for provisional bail.