Petitioner granted bail under Section 138 despite pending cases for dishonoring cheques

The court granted the petitioner's regular bail application under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, despite multiple pending cases for dishonoring cheques. Bail was allowed with stringent conditions to ensure the petitioner's presence during trial, including providing a personal bond and local surety. The court emphasized compliance with imposed conditions, such as appearing before the trial court and refraining from influencing witnesses. Any breach would lead to bail cancellation, with the trial court empowered to impose further conditions if necessary, in line with recent statutory amendments.

---

---

Issues Involved:
Regular bail application under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Non-appearance of petitioner in court - Multiple cases pending against petitioner for dishonoring cheques - Opposing bail on grounds of past conduct and non-availability - Petitioner's defense of non-deliberate non-appearance - Conditions for granting bail - Imposition of bail conditions - Consideration of property for surety - Compliance with directions - Consideration of recent statutory amendments.

Analysis:

1. Regular Bail Application: The petitioner filed a petition seeking regular bail in a case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The petitioner had been remanded to judicial custody due to non-execution of bailable and non-bailable warrants against him.

2. Multiple Cases Pending: There were about 20 cases pending against the petitioner for dishonoring cheques issued for horticultural crops. The petitioner was declared a proclaimed offender in 18 out of 20 cases due to his non-traceability.

3. Opposition to Bail: The bail for the petitioner was opposed based on his past conduct of avoiding warrants and non-availability during trial. The complainant argued that the petitioner, a resident of Nepal, did not own any property in Himachal Pradesh, raising concerns about his availability during trial.

4. Petitioner's Defense: The petitioner claimed that his non-appearance in court was not intentional but due to being engaged in business activities in remote areas. He expressed willingness to abide by any conditions imposed by the court, including providing separate bail bonds and local surety.

5. Conditions for Bail: The court considered various factors, including the petitioner's past conduct and the purpose of bail to ensure his presence during trial. The petitioner was ordered to be enlarged on bail upon furnishing a personal bond and local surety with specific conditions to ensure his availability and compliance during trial.

6. Imposition of Bail Conditions: The court imposed conditions such as the petitioner's availability before the trial court, refraining from influencing witnesses, not leaving Himachal Pradesh without court permission, and providing contact details. Any violation of these conditions would lead to bail cancellation.

7. Compliance and Further Directions: The trial court was directed to comply with the court's directions and was given the authority to impose additional conditions if deemed necessary. The complainant could also seek further conditions, and any breach could lead to bail cancellation.

8. Statutory Amendments: The court noted recent statutory amendments regarding the deposit of a certain amount and directed the trial court to consider this aspect in line with the law.

9. Conclusion: The petition for regular bail was granted with specific conditions, emphasizing the importance of the petitioner's compliance and presence during trial. The judgment ensured a balance between the petitioner's rights and the interests of justice, with provisions for additional conditions and bail cancellation in case of non-compliance.

---