RAGHVENDRA DWIVEDI v. STATE OF HARYANA & Anr.

Judgment

#1. The present petition has been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973), seeking grant of regular bail to the petitioner, whose application for regular bail has been dismissed vide the impugned order dated 26.05.2026 (Annexure P-6) passed in Bail Application

No. BA-857 of 2026, arising out of Criminal Appeal No. CRA-336 of 2025 titled "Kshetriya Shree Gandhi Ashram Trust Vs. Haryana Khadi Gramodyog Sangh", which, in turn, arises out of Complaint No. NACT-681 of 2019 instituted on 01.04.2019 titled "Haryana Khadi Gramodyog Sangh Vs. Kshetriya Shree Gandhi Ashram Trust".

#2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the complainant instituted a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, alleging that the petitioner, being the authorised signatory of Kshetriya Shree Gandhi Ashram Trust, had business dealings with the complainant firm dealing in woollen products and had purchased goods from time to time, against which CRM-M-33673-2026 2 an outstanding liability of approximately 40,00,000/- was due. In partial ₹ discharge of the said liability, the petitioner issued cheque No. 002703 dated

26.12.2018 for a sum of 10,00,000/- drawn on Central Bank of India. Upon ₹ presentation, the cheque was dishonoured with the remarks "Exceeds Arrangement". Despite service of the statutory legal notice, the amount remained unpaid, leading to the institution of the complaint. Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Panipat, vide judgment and order dated 27.08.2025, convicted and sentenced the petitioner for the offence punishable under Sections 138 and 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

2.1 Aggrieved thereof, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat, wherein the sentence was suspended and the petitioner was admitted to bail, subject to the condition of depositing 20% of the compensation amount in terms of Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Since the petitioner failed to comply with the said condition, the learned Appellate Court revoked the suspension of sentence, cancelled the bail granted to the petitioner and, thereafter, dismissed his application for regular bail vide the impugned order dated 26.05.2026, which has been challenged in the present petition.

#3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order declining regular bail is wholly unsustainable in law. It is contended that the petitioner's continued incarceration is not on account of the merits of the conviction, but solely due to non-compliance with the condition directing deposit of 20% of the compensation amount under Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. It is argued that the petitioner is about 66 years of CRM-M-33673-2026 3 age, is a retired employee drawing a meagre pension, has no independent source of income and, therefore, was genuinely unable to comply with the said condition. It is further submitted that the petitioner had moved an application seeking waiver/reduction of the amount on account of old age, illness and financial hardship; however, the learned Appellate Court revoked the suspension of sentence and cancelled the bail without adjudicating the said application on merits.

3.1 Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner had challenged the order dated 16.04.2026 in the connected appeal, namely CRA No. 337 of 2025, before this Court by filing CRM-M-26433-2026, wherein this Court, vide order dated 11.05.2026, set aside the non-bailable warrants and remanded the matter to the learned Appellate Court for considering the petitioner's application for waiver in the light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jamboo Bhandari. Pursuant thereto, the learned Appellate Court granted regular bail to the petitioner on 20.05.2026 in the said connected appeal.

3.2 It is further submitted that although the petitioner was arrested on

10.05.2026 pursuant to the warrants issued in both appeals before the aforesaid order of this Court could be implemented, he could not simultaneously challenge the order passed in the present appeal, i.e. CRA No. 336 of 2025. However, the petitioner has since challenged the said order before this Court by filing CRM-M-32035-2026, wherein notice of motion has already been issued and the matter is pending consideration. It is, thus, contended that when the petitioner has already been granted bail in the CRM-M-33673-2026 4 connected appeal arising out of similar facts and circumstances, the principle of parity squarely applies to the present case.

3.3 Learned counsel further submits that the appeal against conviction is still pending before the learned Appellate Court and is not likely to be decided in the near future. The petitioner has remained in custody since

10.05.2026, is not a flight risk, and there is no allegation that he has misused the concession of bail or attempted to evade the process of law. It is, therefore, prayed that the petitioner be enlarged on regular bail during the pendency of the appeal.

#5. Notice of motion. Mr. Tanuj Sharma, learned Assistant Advocate General, Haryana, has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent-State and has filed the custody certificate dated 22.07.2026, which is taken on record, subject to all just exceptions. As per the custody certificate, the petitioner has already undergone a total custody period of 02 months and 12 days.

5.1 Learned State counsel opposes the present petition and submits that the petitioner was granted the concession of suspension of sentence and bail by the learned Appellate Court subject to the statutory condition of deposit of 20% of the compensation amount. Despite sufficient opportunity, the petitioner failed to comply with the said condition, as a result of which the learned Appellate Court rightly revoked the suspension of sentence, cancelled the bail and dismissed the subsequent application for regular bail.

#6. On consideration of the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and the material available on record, it emerges that the petitioner stands convicted and sentenced in a complaint case for offences CRM-M-33673-2026 5 punishable under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and that his appeal against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence is presently pending adjudication before the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat. During the pendency of the appeal, the sentence of the petitioner was suspended vide order dated 29.09.2025, subject to his furnishing the requisite bail bonds and surety bonds and depositing 20% of the compensation amount within a period of 60 days in terms of Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Admittedly, the petitioner failed to comply with the said condition. Consequently, vide order dated 16.04.2026, the learned Appellate Court revoked the suspension of sentence, cancelled the bail granted to the petitioner and issued non-bailable warrants against him.

6.1 It is, however, not in dispute that the petitioner challenged the aforesaid order before this Court not only in the present matter but also in another connected appeal arising out of similar facts. In the connected matter, a Coordinate Bench of this Court, vide order dated 11.05.2026, set aside the order passed by the learned Appellate Court and remanded the matter with a direction to reconsider the petitioner's plea after affording him an opportunity to establish the existence of exceptional circumstances warranting waiver of the requirement of deposit under Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and to pass a reasoned order thereon. In the present matter, notice of motion has also been issued by this Court in the petition challenging the order dated 16.04.2026, and the same is stated to be pending consideration.

6.2 It is further borne out from the record that after his arrest pursuant to the non-bailable warrants, the petitioner surrendered before the learned CRM-M-33673-2026 6 Appellate Court and moved an application seeking regular bail, which came to be dismissed vide the impugned order dated 26.05.2026.

6.3 Considering that the petitioner's appeal against conviction is still pending before the first Appellate Court and is yet to be heard on merits, coupled with the fact that, as per the custody certificate, the petitioner has undergone custody of 02 months and 12 days, this Court is of the considered opinion that further incarceration of the petitioner is not warranted at this stage. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the appeal or on the issue regarding waiver of deposit under Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, which shall be independently considered in the pending proceedings, the present petition deserves to be allowed.

#7. Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail, subject to his furnishing adequate bail bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned First Appellate Court/Duty Magistrate concerned. The release of the petitioner shall further remain subject to the following conditions:-

#1. The petitioner shall appear before the learned First Appellate Court on each and every date fixed, unless his personal appearance is exempted in accordance with law.

#2. The petitioner shall not leave the territorial limits of India without obtaining prior permission of the learned First Appellate Court.

#3. The petitioner shall intimate the learned First Appellate Court, in writing, of any change in his residential address or mobile number within seven days from the date of such change.

#4. In the event the petitioner misuses the concession of bail or remains absent from the appellate proceedings without sufficient cause, it shall be open to the learned First Appellate Court to proceed in accordance with law, including cancellation of the concession of bail. CRM-M-33673-2026 7

#8. It is, however, clarified that the learned First Appellate Court shall proceed to decide the pending appeal on its own merits, uninfluenced by any observations made herein, and shall make an endeavour to dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible. (VIRINDER AGGARWAL) JUDGE

23.07.2026 Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable : : Yes/No Yes/No