Introduction:
In Rajkumar Santoshi v. State of Gujarat & Another and connected matters [2025 LiveLaw (Guj) 241], the Gujarat High Court examined the delicate balance between personal liberty, judicial discipline, and the rights of a complainant in a cheque dishonour prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The case arose after a trial court convicted a well-known film director for dishonour of cheques, sentencing him to two years’ simple imprisonment along with a direction to pay compensation amounting to twice the cheque value. The conviction was challenged before the High Court, which suspended the sentence and granted bail subject to strict financial and travel-related conditions based on an undertaking given by the applicant. Subsequently, the applicant sought relaxation of the bail condition restraining foreign travel and sought extension of time to deposit the remaining amount as per the undertaking. The vacation bench of Justice P.M. Raval, while partly allowing the applications, reiterated that while courts may show flexibility in deserving circumstances, undertakings given to the court must be honoured in letter and spirit, and indulgence cannot be endless. The decision offers an important insight into how appellate courts approach sentence suspension, bail conditions, and compliance obligations in economic offences.
Arguments:
On behalf of the applicant, it was submitted that the conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was already under challenge before the High Court and that the sentence had been suspended by a coordinate bench on October 30, 2025. Learned counsel for the applicant pointed out that suspension of sentence was granted after the applicant gave a solemn undertaking to deposit a substantial amount towards the cheque liability, demonstrating his bona fides. It was argued that the applicant had already deposited a significant portion of the total amount, and only a relatively small balance remained. Emphasis was placed on the fact that the applicant is a professional film director whose livelihood and professional obligations require travel, and that he had been invited to attend overseas promotional events for his upcoming film “Lahore 1947”. It was contended that denial of permission to travel abroad for a short, specified duration would cause irreparable professional harm and would be disproportionate, particularly when the applicant had complied substantially with the financial conditions imposed by the court. The applicant assured the court that he would strictly adhere to the travel schedule, return within the stipulated time, and continue to comply with all other bail conditions. With regard to the request for extension of time to deposit the remaining amount, it was submitted that minor delays had occurred due to financial and logistical reasons, but there was no intention to breach the undertaking. The applicant prayed for a reasonable extension of time in the interest of justice, arguing that rigid enforcement without considering surrounding circumstances would defeat the object of securing payment rather than punishment.
On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the original complainant strongly opposed both applications. It was argued that the applicant had obtained suspension of sentence and bail solely on the strength of an undertaking given to the High Court, which had the force of a solemn assurance to the court. The complainant contended that the applicant had failed to honour the undertaking within the agreed timeline, thereby disentitling himself from any further indulgence. It was urged that cheque dishonour cases involve financial harm and erosion of trust, and repeated extensions dilute the deterrent effect of the law. With respect to foreign travel, it was argued that once a condition prohibiting travel abroad was imposed, it could not be lightly relaxed, particularly when full compliance with monetary conditions was still pending. The complainant expressed apprehension that permitting foreign travel before complete deposit of the amount could jeopardise recovery and undermine the complainant’s rights. It was thus submitted that both applications deserved outright rejection to uphold the sanctity of court orders and undertakings.
The State supported the complainant’s opposition to the extent that undertakings given to courts must be strictly enforced. However, it left the ultimate discretion to the court, subject to safeguarding the interests of justice and ensuring the applicant’s presence and compliance.
Court’s Judgment:
After hearing all parties, the vacation bench of Justice P.M. Raval adopted a balanced and pragmatic approach. The Court first addressed the application seeking relaxation of the bail condition restraining foreign travel. The Court noted that while suspending the sentence by order dated October 30, 2025, the coordinate bench had imposed a specific condition that the applicant shall not leave India without prior permission of the High Court. The present application, therefore, was not an attempt to violate the condition but a request for its modification with the court’s permission. The Court took into account the submission that the applicant was required to travel abroad for promotional events of his upcoming film and that documentary proof in the form of travel tickets had been placed on record. On perusal of the tickets, the Court found that the travel period was limited, commencing on December 30, 2025 and concluding with return by January 4, 2026 midnight.
A crucial factor that weighed with the Court was that a substantial portion of the cheque amount had already been deposited pursuant to the earlier order. The Court observed that the primary purpose of imposing financial conditions while suspending sentence in cheque dishonour cases is to secure the complainant’s interest and ensure seriousness of the challenge to conviction. Since the applicant had shown substantial compliance and there was no material to suggest an intention to abscond, the Court held that it would be in the interest of justice to allow limited foreign travel. Accordingly, the condition restraining travel was relaxed to the extent of permitting the applicant to leave India on December 30, 2025, with a clear direction to return on or before January 5, 2026 at 00:00 hours. The Court made it implicit that the relaxation was case-specific, time-bound, and conditional upon continued compliance with all other bail conditions.
Turning to the application seeking extension of time to deposit the remaining balance amount, the Court examined the undertaking originally given by the applicant. The undertaking had stipulated deposit of ₹5 lakhs initially, followed by two instalments of ₹41.50 lakhs each, the last being due by December 31, 2025. The Court noted the complainant’s strong objection, particularly the argument that undertakings given to the court must be honoured “in true spirit.” At the same time, the Court acknowledged that a substantial amount had already been deposited and that, across connected matters, only ₹35 lakhs remained to be deposited in the registry.
Balancing these considerations, Justice Raval held that the ends of justice would be served by granting a final and limited extension of time. The Court extended the deadline for deposit of the remaining amount until January 31, 2026, but issued an unequivocal warning that no further extension would be granted under any circumstances. The Court made it clear that the indulgence was granted solely in view of substantial compliance already shown and that the sanctity of the undertaking remained paramount. All other conditions imposed while suspending the sentence were expressly left unaltered.
In conclusion, the High Court partly allowed the applications: permitting foreign travel for a defined period and granting a final extension for deposit of the remaining amount, while simultaneously reinforcing the binding nature of undertakings and conditions attached to bail. The order reflects judicial sensitivity to professional realities while maintaining firm control over compliance in economic offences.