Mumbai, July 7, 2022 – Pratik Nainmal Punamiya has been granted bail by the Sessions Court in Mumbai pending the hearing of his appeal against a conviction in a cheque dishonor case. Punamiya was convicted by the Metropolitan Magistrate, 56th Court, Mazgaon, Mumbai, in C.C. No. 5607133/SS/2019, for an offense under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. He subsequently filed Criminal Appeal No. 391/2022, and this bail application (BA 1607/2022) was filed in connection with that appeal.

The Case Background

Punamiya was convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, which deals with the dishonor of cheques for insufficiency of funds. He then filed an appeal challenging his conviction.

Arguments and Court’s Decision

Mr. Manohar N. Rajput, representing Punamiya, argued for his client’s release on bail pending the appeal. Mr. Jatin Shah represented the complainant, Mamta Hemant Joshi.

Additional Sessions Judge Chitra Hankare considered the submissions and the impugned order of the Magistrate Court. The court noted that the appeal would take time to be heard and that keeping Punamiya in custody during this period would not serve any purpose. The court also noted that Punamiya had been on bail during the trial.

“The appeal will take its own time to ripe for final hearing. Nothing will gain by keeping the appellant/orig. accused behind the bar. He was on bail during trial. Looking to the aforesaid circumstances, appellant/orig. accused is entitled to grant bail,” Judge Hankare stated in the order.

Considering these factors, the court granted Punamiya bail pending the appeal.

Bail Conditions

Punamiya was granted bail on a personal bond (P.R. Bond) of Rs. 15,000 with a surety of the same amount.

Key Points

• Conviction Under Section 138: Punamiya was convicted for dishonoring a cheque.
• Appeal Pending: He filed an appeal against his conviction.
• Time for Appeal: The court acknowledged that the appeal would take time to be heard.
• Bail During Trial: Punamiya had been on bail during the trial.
• No Purpose in Custody: The court found no purpose in keeping him in custody during the appeal period.
• Negotiable Instruments Act: The case falls under the negotiable instruments act.