ABHAY KUMAR SINGH Vs. STATE & ANR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present C-482 application has been filed for quashing of order dated 19.6.2018 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Kotdwar in Criminal Appeal No.24 of 2016.

(2.) By judgment and order dated 23.06.2016 passed by Addl. C.J.M., Kotdwar, applicant was convicted under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and was sentenced for a period of one year rigorous imprisonment along with fine of Rs.40, 00, 000/-. Against the order of conviction, applicant preferred appeal and also moved bail application. Bail application was considered by the Addl. Sessions Judge, but while granting bail to the applicant during appeal, the appellate court directed that the appellant/applicant be released on bail during appeal on furnishing his personal bond and two sureties of the like amount and the deposition of fine imposed by the trial court shall be the condition precedent for regular bail. Feeling aggrieved, the applicant approached this Court by way of Criminal Revision No.228 of 2016, wherein this Court, vide order dated 10.08.2016, modified the order dated 20.07.2016 and directed the applicant to deposit half of the fine as imposed by the trial court with two weeks. Thereafter, on 05.12017, when the revision came up for hearing, on the statement of learned counsel for the revisionist that he has no instructions in the matter, revision was dismissed. Thereafter, the court below proceeded with the matter. Due to non-appearance of the applicant before the lower appellate court on two consecutive dates, the court below, vide order dated 09.01.2018, issued non-bailable warrants against the applicant, in pursuance whereof, applicant was arrested and sent to jail. Thereafter, on 19.06.2018, lower appellate court passed an order directing the applicant to first comply with the orders dated 20.07.2016 and 05.12017 and thereafter his bail application shall be considered.

(3.) Learned counsel for the applicant draws attention of this Court to Section 357(2) of Cr.P.C. and on the strength of it, he submits that the impugned order is unsustainable. For convenience, sub-section (2) of Section 357 reads as under: