Justice MR Mengdey granted bail following arguments from Santoshi’s counsel, who stated that the filmmaker had already deposited Rs 6 lakhs of the Rs 22.5 lakh allegedly owed, as part of his appeal against the conviction.
![[Cheque Dishonor Case] Gujarat High Court Grants Interim Bail To Filmmaker Rajkumar Santoshi](https://i0.wp.com/lawchakra.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/Filmmaker-Rajkumar-Santoshi-facing-legal-action.png?resize=610%2C341&ssl=1)
Gujarat: On Monday (2nd Dec), the Gujarat High Court granted ad interim bail to Bollywood filmmaker Rajkumar Santoshi, who had been sentenced to two years in prison and a Rs 20 lakh fine after being found guilty in a cheque dishonor case.
Justice MR Mengdey granted bail following arguments from Santoshi’s counsel, who stated that the filmmaker had already deposited Rs 6 lakhs of the Rs 22.5 lakh allegedly owed, as part of his appeal against the conviction.
Santoshi also expressed his willingness to pay the remaining Rs 16.5 lakhs to the court’s registry.
The High Court granted Santoshi ad interim bail until the next hearing date on February 13, 2025. Earlier this year, a Gujarat magistrate court had convicted Santoshi under the Negotiable Instruments Act (NI Act), sentencing him to two years in prison and imposing a Rs 20 lakh fine.
Section 138 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
138. Dishonour of cheque for insufficiency, etc., of funds in the account.
Where any cheque drawn by a person on an account maintained by him with a banker for payment of any amount of money to another person from out of that account for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability, is returned by the bank unpaid, either because of the amount of money standing to the credit of that account is insufficient to honour the cheque or that it exceeds the amount arranged to be paid from that account by an agreement made with that bank, such person shall be deemed to have committed an offence and shall, without prejudice to any other provisions of this Act, be punished with imprisonment for a term which may be extended to two years, or with fine which may extend to twice the amount of the cheque, or with both:
Provided that nothing contained in this section shall apply unless—
(a) the cheque has been presented to the bank within a period of six months from the date on which it is drawn or within the period of its validity, whichever is earlier;
(b) the payee or the holder in due course of the cheque, as the case may be, makes a demand for the payment of the said amount of money by giving a notice in writing, to the drawer of the cheque, [within thirty days of the receipt of information by him from the bank regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid; and
(c) the drawer of such cheque fails to make the payment of the said amount of money to the payee or, as the case may be, to the holder in due course of the cheque, within fifteen days of the receipt of the said notice.
His appeal was rejected by the sessions court, prompting him to challenge the decision in the High Court.
Santoshi’s counsel raised several points in the appeal, including contradictions between the initial complaint and the notice issued under Section 138 of the NI Act (dishonor of cheque for insufficient funds). They also highlighted inconsistencies in the complainant’s statements during the trial. Specifically, the complainant initially claimed to have given a sum of money to Santoshi but later revealed that it was his wife who had paid Rs 20 lakhs to Santoshi in 2010.
The complainant also admitted that Santoshi had repaid the full Rs 20 lakh, along with an additional Rs 17.5 lakh, totaling Rs 37.5 lakh. However, the complainant claimed he was entitled to Rs 60 lakh, and after receiving Rs 37.5 lakh, a balance of Rs 22.5 lakh remained due.
Following these preliminary submissions, the High Court granted Santoshi ad interim bail, noting that he had already deposited Rs 6 lakhs and was prepared to deposit the remaining amount during the appeal process.
Advocate Nimit Y Shukla represented Rajkumar Santoshi.
[ Case Title: Rajkumar Santoshi v. State of Gujarat & Anr.]
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
