In a recent ruling, the Supreme Court overturned a Bombay High Court decision requiring a man accused of bank fraud to deposit 50% of the compensation amount to suspend his sentence. The case, titled Nikhil v. State of Maharashtra, saw Justices Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Pankaj Mithal declaring the condition unjustified.
Initially sentenced to four years and six months for offenses under Sections 409 and 201 of the IPC, the appellant faced a ₹2.86 crore compensation order. The High Court, while granting suspension, mandated depositing ₹1.43 crore. Disagreeing with this, the Supreme Court referenced the Dilip S. Dahanukar vs. Mahindra Co. Ltd. case to argue that such conditions misinterpret Section 357 of the CrPC, which deals with compensatory orders in criminal cases.
Advocates including Shreeyash Uday Lalit and Ishaan George represented the appellant, countering arguments from respondents’ counsels like Shrirang B Varma and Siddharth Dharmadhikari.
