Spread the love
CITATIONSLP(Crl) No. 7433/2019 II-A
DATE OF JUDGEMENT 3rd January 2024
COURTSupreme Court of India 
APPELLANT Satish P. Bhatt 
RESPONDENTState of Maharashtra & ANR
BENCHVikram Nath, Rajesh Bindal 


In a recent case of Satish P. Bhatt vs. The State of Maharashtra and Ors., a two-judge Bench of the Supreme Court, comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Rajesh Bindal, delivered a Judgment on 03.01.2024. The Court discerned that the Appellant-Accused had notably failed to adhere to the prescribed terms delineated within the Undertaking and the Orders issued by both the Trial Court and the Bombay High Court, particularly concerning the disbursement of the settlement amount to the Complainant. Consequently, the Apex Court upheld the High Court’s Order dated 23.07.2019, effectively nullifying the Suspension of Sentence and Bail previously granted to the Accused individuals. In addition to this, the Supreme Court levied a fine of Rs. 5,00,000/- upon the Accused and decreed their obligation to serve the term of imprisonment as awarded by the Trial Court.


  • Satish P. Bhatt and Vishwanath Ramakrishna Nayak, affiliates of M/s. Astral Glass Private Limited (AGPL), were indicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 across three distinct cases.
  • The trial court decided a combined sentence of 10 months along with a liability of Rs. 5 crores.
  • The High Court exhibited a resolute stance regarding the persistent financial delinquency of the appellant.
  • Consequently, the court nullified his bail and suspended the sentence, symbolizing the judiciary’s exasperation with recurrent non-compliance.
  • The appeal contests the validity of the High Court’s pronouncement rendered on July 23, 2019.
  • The High Court rescinded the suspension of sentence and bail granted to both the appellant and the intervenor.
  • This rescission transpired due to their infringement of the undertaking proffered before the High Court and their failure to conform to the stipulated conditions.


  • Were the accusation of dishonoring a cheque against Satish P. Bhatt by M/s. Astral Glass Private Limited (AGPL), in violation of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act valid?
  • Whether the high court’s cancellation of the grant of bail to the accused who failed to perform his financial obligations valid?


  1. The appellant’s counsel argued that the appellant had fulfilled his half share of the total liability amounting to Rs. 1,95,00,000 out of the Rs. 5 crores. This payment, according to the appellant, justified his appeal against the High Court’s decision to cancel his bail and suspend his sentence.
  2. The appeal seeks to challenge the judgment revoked the suspension of sentence and bail previously granted to both the appellant and an intervenor.
  3. Therefore, the appellant contends that the High Court’s decision to cancel his bail and suspend his sentence was unjustified and should be overturned.


  • The respondents contended that both the appellant, Satish P. Bhatt, and the intervenor violated the undertaking provided before the High Court on July 3, 2018, as documented in the contemporaneous order. Additionally, they failed to adhere to the condition specified in paragraph 3 of the March 20, 2019, order, which extended the deadline for compliance.
  • Their affiliation with M/s. Astral Glass Private Limited (AGPL), which was convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, led to a combined sentence of ten months and a collective liability of Rs. 5 crores across several cases.


The court is not inclined to go into this question as to who is to pay how much amount. The fact remains that the total amount agreed to be paid has not been paid and as per the order of the High Court dated 20.03.2019 the revisionists being in default in payment of the agreed amount, the interim protection granted by way of bail and suspension of sentence, would stand withdrawn without reference to the Court. The court finds no infirmity in the impugned order.

The court did not find any illegality in the order passed by the High Court. The appeal is accordingly dismissed with costs quantified within four weeks.

It is further directed that the appellant and the intervenor surrender within four weeks from today to undergo the sentence. If they do not surrender, the High Court to take appropriate coercive measures to get the sentence executed. The High Court will proceed to decide the revisions as also pending applications if any and ensure that the undertaking is fully complied with and the complainant is suitably compensated for the further harassment caused.


The High Court of Judicature in Bombay adopted a resolute stance against the appellant’s persistent failure to meet his financial obligations. This lack of compliance ultimately resulted in his bail’s cancellation and sentence suspension. Such a decision underscores the legal system’s exasperation with repeated instances of non-compliance, emphasizing the imperative of upholding one’s commitments within the judicial framework. 

The appellant’s appeal to the Supreme Court challenges the judgment and order issued by the High Court on July 23, 2019. In this ruling, the High Court revoked the suspension of sentence and bail that had been granted to both the appellant and the intervenor. 

The basis for this cancellation rested upon their violations of undertakings made before the High Court, as well as their failure to adhere to the specified conditions, reflecting the gravity with which courts view breaches of trust and legal obligations.


In conclusion, the Supreme Court recognized that the Complainant had agreed to accept a significantly reduced amount compared to the Trial Court’s directive. Despite being engaged in legal battles since 2007, spanning over sixteen years, the Complainant has yet to receive the funds stipulated by the High Court Order of 03.07.2018 and the Trial Court Order of 26.08.2011. Consequently, the Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision of 23.07.2019 to cancel the Suspension of Sentence and Bail granted to the Appellant. The Appellant’s Appeal was dismissed, with costs of Rs. 5 Lakhs imposed to be paid to the Complainant within four weeks. Additionally, the Supreme Court directed the Accused individuals to surrender within the same timeframe to begin serving the sentence issued by the Trial Court.


This Article is written by Samruddhi Lele, student of Shankarao Chavan Law College Pune (MMSCLC); Intern at Legal Vidhiya.

Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or the materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is of a personal nature.


Leave a Reply

Avatar placeholder

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *