The Rajasthan High Court has reaffirmed that courts cannot impose monetary conditions, such as depositing a percentage of the cheque amount, while suspending a sentence under Section 430 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS). This ruling clarifies the limits of appellate courts' discretion in criminal appeals, ensuring that bail conditions remain fair and legally sound.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Pushkar, was convicted in a cheque bounce case and sentenced by the trial court. He filed an appeal before the Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Udaipur, seeking suspension of his sentence under Section 430 of the BNSS (corresponding to Section 389 of the CrPC). While allowing the suspension, the appellate court imposed a condition requiring the petitioner to deposit 20% of the compensation/fine amount within 60 days, in addition to furnishing bail bonds.
Key Facts
- The petitioner was convicted in a cheque bounce case and sentenced by the trial court
- He filed Criminal Appeal No. 133/2026 before the Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Udaipur, seeking suspension of sentence under Section 430 BNSS
- The appellate court allowed the suspension but imposed a condition to deposit 20% of the cheque amount within 60 days
- The petitioner challenged this condition before the Rajasthan High Court
Procedural History
- Trial Court: Convicted the petitioner in a cheque bounce case
- 13.03.2026: Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Udaipur, passed an order suspending the sentence but imposed a condition to deposit 20% of the cheque amount
- 29.06.2026: The petitioner filed S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 4247/2026 before the Rajasthan High Court challenging the condition
- 28.04.2026: A Co-ordinate Bench of the Rajasthan High Court, in S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 9802/2025, held that such conditions cannot be imposed while suspending a sentence
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought the quashing of the condition imposed by the appellate court, arguing that it was unlawful and contrary to the principles laid down by the High Court in a previous order.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether an appellate court can impose a monetary condition, such as depositing a percentage of the cheque amount, while suspending a sentence under Section 430 of the BNSS.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner's counsel relied on the order dated 28.04.2026 passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of the Rajasthan High Court in S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 9802/2025, which held that such conditions cannot be imposed while suspending a sentence. The counsel argued that the appellate court's order was contrary to this precedent and thus unlawful.
For the Respondent
The respondent, represented by the Public Prosecutor, did not present any specific counter-arguments in the judgment text. The focus remained on the petitioner's reliance on the earlier High Court order.
The Court's Analysis
The Court observed that the matter required consideration in light of the earlier order passed by a Co-ordinate Bench on 28.04.2026, which had categorically held that imposing monetary conditions while suspending a sentence under Section 430 BNSS is not permissible. The Court noted that the appellate court's order dated 13.03.2026 was inconsistent with this legal principle.
The Court emphasized the importance of adhering to judicial precedents, particularly when they establish clear legal principles. It held that the condition imposed by the appellate court was unlawful and could not be sustained.
"The condition directing deposit of 20% of the cheque amount, as imposed by the learned Appellate Court vide order dated 13.03.2026, shall remain stayed."
The Verdict
The Court issued notice to the respondent and stayed the condition imposed by the appellate court requiring the petitioner to deposit 20% of the cheque amount. It further directed that if the petitioner was in custody solely due to non-compliance with the impugned condition, he should be released forthwith, provided he was not required in any other case. The appellate court was directed to ensure compliance with this order.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Monetary Conditions for Suspension of Sentence Are Unlawful
- Courts cannot impose monetary conditions, such as depositing a percentage of the cheque amount, while suspending a sentence under Section 430 BNSS
- Any such condition imposed by lower courts is liable to be set aside on challenge before the High Court
- Practitioners should rely on the precedent set in S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 9802/2025 to challenge unlawful conditions
Judicial Precedents Must Be Followed
- Appellate courts are bound by the legal principles established by Co-ordinate Benches of the High Court
- Imposing conditions contrary to established precedents may lead to their quashing
- This ruling reinforces the importance of consistency in judicial decisions, particularly in matters involving personal liberty
