Mumbai, April 30, 2024 – Sudhakar Vitthal Narvekar, convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, has been granted bail by the Sessions Court for Greater Mumbai, Mazgaon, pending his appeal. Additional Sessions Judge K.P. Shrikhande (Court Room No. 87) issued the order on April 19, 2024.

Narvekar was convicted in C.C. No. 0602115/SC/2022 and sentenced to one year of simple imprisonment, along with a compensation order of Rs. 7,00,000 to the complainant, with an additional three months of simple imprisonment in case of default. He subsequently filed Criminal Appeal No. 95 of 2024 challenging the conviction.

Background and Allegations:

Narvekar was convicted for an offense under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (cheque dishonor). He was sentenced to imprisonment and ordered to pay compensation. He filed an appeal against the trial court’s judgment.

Arguments Presented:

Advocate Anthony Michael represented Narvekar, while Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) Kishor Tadavi represented the State (Respondent No. 1), and Advocate Vaishali Chavan represented the original complainant (Respondent No. 2).

Court’s Reasoning and Decision:

Judge Shrikhande noted that Narvekar was on bail during the trial period. He also considered that Narvekar had filed an appeal challenging the conviction and that the substantive sentence of imprisonment and the direction to pay compensation had been suspended.

Considering these factors, the court determined that Narvekar could be released on bail pending the appeal.

Bail Conditions:

Narvekar was granted bail upon executing a personal bond of Rs. 25,000 with a surety of the same amount. The following conditions were imposed:

• Narvekar must furnish the bail before the trial court within one month.
• Narvekar was given the liberty to furnish cash security in lieu of a solvent surety.

Order Details:

The order was typed on April 25, 2024, and signed on an unspecified date. The certified copy was uploaded on April 30, 2024, at 11:15 a.m.

This decision reflects the court’s consideration of the pendency of the appeal, the suspension of the sentence, and the provision of an opportunity for Narvekar to secure his release.