Patna High Court
Guddu RaiversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- SOURENDRA PANDEY
Holding
The condition of payment of 20% of Rs 35 lakh imposed with bail is quashed as it amounts to an order under Section 143A of the Negotiable Instruments Act and is an abuse of process.
Summary
Guddu Rai was granted bail by the Judicial Magistrate, Fast Court, Danapur, on the condition that he deposit 20% of Rs 35 lakh within three months. The High Court held that imposing such a payment condition at the bail stage amounts to an order under Section 143A of the Negotiable Instruments Act, which is a separate proceeding, and therefore constitutes an abuse of process. Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Rakesh Ranjan Srivastava v. State of Jharkhand, the Court noted that interim compensation can be ordered only after a prima facie case is made and after considering factors such as the accused’s financial capacity. Consequently, the condition of payment and any consequential orders were quashed. The Court directed that a separate application under Section 143A may be filed for interim compensation, and allowed the petition.
Issues considered
- Whether a condition of payment of interim compensation can be imposed at the time of granting bail
- Whether such a condition amounts to an order under Section 143A of the Negotiable Instruments Act
- Whether imposing the condition constitutes an abuse of the process of law
Legislation cited
- Negotiable Instruments Act — s. 139, 143A
Subjects
- bail
- interim compensation
- Section 143A
- Negotiable Instruments Act
- abuse of process
- quash order
- criminal miscellaneous
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.53584 of 2024
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-1027 Year-2021 Thana- PATNA COMPLAINT CASE District-
Patna
======================================================
Guddu Rai Son of Late Sanchit Rai @ Lacchu R/V- Jivrakhan Tola, P.S.-
Maner, Distt.- Patna
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Kanchan Singh S/o Shri Basudev Singh Village-Daudpur, P.O.- Daudpur,
P.S.- Shahpur , Distt.- Patna (Bihar)
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Md. Helal Ahmad, Adv.
Mr. Md. Ejaz Akhter, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Rahul Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Bijay Kumar Pathak, Adv.
Mr. Shambhu Sharan, Adv.
Mr. Nagendra Kumar Singh, Adv.
Ms. Usha Kumari Singh, Adv.
Ms. Sunidhi Vimal, Adv.
For the State : Mr.Md. Shakir Ahmad, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOURENDRA PANDEY
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 18-02-2026
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned
counsel for the O.P. No. 2 and learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. The petitioner has made the following prayer in this
application :-
“That this application on behalf of the
petitioner above named, is for quashing of
part of conditional order dated 11.09.2023
and consequential order dated 04.01.2024
passed in Complaint Case No.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.53584 of 2024 dt.18-02-2026
2/5
1027(C)/2021 dated 08.10.2021 by
learned Judicial Magistrate, Fast Court,
Danapur, whereby the petitioner released
on bail with a condition of payment of 20
percent of Rs. 35 Lacs within three months
period and during pendency of this case
stay the coercive action taken against the
petitioner in Complaint Case No. 1027
(C)/ 2021 pending before the learned
Judicial Magistrate, Fast Court, Danapur,
Patna.”
3. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties
and perused the record, it is evident that the order dated
11.09.2023 was passed granting bail to the petitioner, however,
the Court had imposed the condition that the petitioner shall be
depositing 20 percent of Rs. 35 lacs within the period of three
months. Such direction, to the understanding of this Court,
would amount to passing an order under Section 143A of the
N.I. Act which is separate proceeding in itself. This Court finds
that imposing such condition at the time of grant of bail would
amount to abuse of the process of law especially the fact that
there is a special provision within the Negotiable Instrument Act
for payment of interim compensation during the pendency of the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.53584 of 2024 dt.18-02-2026
3/5
application.
4. In view of the aforesaid settled proposition of law
as observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
Rakesh Ranjan Srivastava vs. State of Jharkhand & Anr.,
reported 2024(4) SCC 419, in paragraph 16, has observed as
under :
“16. When the court deals with an
application under Section 143A of the N.I.
Act, the Court will have to prima facie
evaluate the merits of the case made out by
the complainant and the merits of the defence
pleaded by the accused in the reply to the
application under sub-section (1) of Section
143A. The presumption under Section 139 of
the N.I. Act, by itself, is no ground to direct
the payment of interim compensation. The
reason is that the presumption is rebuttable.
The question of applying the presumption will
arise at the trial. Only if the complainant
makes out a prima facie case, a direction can
be issued to pay interim compensation. At
this stage, the fact that the accused is in
financial distress can also be a
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.53584 of 2024 dt.18-02-2026
4/5
consideration. Even if the Court concludes
that a case is made out for grant of interim
compensation, the Court will have to apply
its mind to the quantum of interim
compensation to be granted. Even at this
stage, the Court will have to consider various
factors such as the nature of the transaction,
the relationship, if any, between the accused
and the complainant and the paying capacity
of the accused. If the defence of the accused
is found to be prima facie a plausible
defence, the Court may exercise discretion in
refusing to grant interim compensation. We
may note that the factors required to be
considered, which we have set out above, are
not exhaustive. There could be several other
factors in the facts of a given case, such as,
the pendency of a civil suit, etc. While
deciding the prayer made under Section
143A, the Court must record brief reasons
indicating consideration of all the relevant
factors”
5. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.53584 of 2024 dt.18-02-2026
5/5
and the judicial pronouncement, the order dated 11.09.2023
passed in Complaint Case No. 1027(C)/2021 as far as the
condition of payment of 20 percent of the amount of the cheque
stands quashed. The O.P. No. 2 shall be at liberty to file a
separate application under Section 143A N.I. Act for grant of
interim compensation. Any consequential order passed pursuant
to order dated 11.09.2023 shall also stand quashed.
6. The application stands allowed.
(Sourendra Pandey, J)
Gautam/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 23.02.2026
Transmission Date 23.02.2026
Checking your session…