Shri.Shakthivel v. K.Yograj And ANR
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
[ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR ] *** CRM/11/2026 IA NO: CRAN/1/2026 Shri Shakthivel Vs K. Yograj & Another Mr. M.K.Thakur ... for the Petitioner Mr. Subir Kumar Golder ... for the respondent no.1.
Mr. Sumit Kumar Karmakar ... for the respondent no.2 April 27, 2026 [SR] Item No.3 1.
The present revisional application has been filed against an order of confirmation by the Appellate Court of the conviction of the petitioner primarily under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
2.
The total cheque amount was Rs.2,00,000/- and the fine imposed was to the tune of further Rs.1,00,000/-. 3.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner cites Sanjabij Tari vs. Kishore S. Borcar and another reported at 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2069 where the Hon'ble Supreme Court framed and revisited the guidelines formulated in respect of such offences. As per the said guidelines, if an application for compounding is made before the Sessions Court or High Court in revisional appeal, such compounding may be allowed on condition that the accused pays 15 % of the cheque amount by way of cost.
4.
The guidelines were revised by the Supreme Court in the self-same judgment and it was observed that if the payment of
cheque amount is made before the Sessions Court or High Court in revisional appeal, such Court may compound the offence on the condition that the accused pays 7.5 % of the cheque amount by way of costs.
5.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits on instruction that the petitioner is agreeable to pay 15% of the cheque amount to the tune of Rs. 30,000/-during the course of the day, since the due date of surrender is tomorrow.
6.
Learned counsel for the complainant opposes such prayer and submits that in view of the past conduct of the petitioner, the petitioner ought not be granted the benefit of bail at this stage.
7.
Learned Public Prosecutor also opposes the prayer for bail and contains that the petitioner missed the opportunities to file application for compounding the offence before the Court of the Magistrate as well as the Appellate Court. 8.
However, on perusal of the guidelines of the Supreme Court as formulated in Paragraph-37 of the cited judgment and further tweaked in Paragraph-38 thereof, it transpires that in a revisional application before this Court, the petitioner is entitled, if he seeks compounding, to get such relief upon payment of 15 % of the cheque amount by way of costs. 9.
In such view of the matter, CRM/11/2026 and CRAN/1/2026 are allowed, thereby granting bail to the petitioner on condition that the petitioner pays 15% of the cheque amount of Rs.2,00,000/-, i.e. Rs. 30,000/- to the complainant by direct online bank transfer during the course of
the day, to the bank account of the complainant, the particulars of which shall be furnished immediately by learned Counsel for the complainant to his counterpart appearing for the petitioner.
10.
Subject to such online transfer, the petitioner is enlarged on bail, subject, however, to the further condition that the balance due amount out of the total Rs. 3,00,000/- shall be paid by the petitioner to the complainant by the same mode, by ten equal monthly instalments, the first of which shall commence from the month of May 2026, payable by May 31, 2026 and thereafter by the last day of each succeeding month until the entire dues are cleared.
11.
It is made clear that in the event of default in payment of any of the instalments, it would be deemed that the conditions of bail are violated and the bail shall stand cancelled and the petitioner shall be taken into custody.
The revisional application, bearing CRR/25/2026, shall be listed before the next Circuit for passing further orders.
12.
It is further clarified that the said remaining instalments shall be construed in reference to the total amount of Rs. 3,00,000/-, including Rs.2,00,000/- as cheque amount and Rs.1,00,000/- by way of fine imposed on the petitioner. (Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.)