In the Supreme Court of Bangladesh                 High Court Division

                           (Criminal Revisional Jurisdiction)

PRESENT:

MR. JUSTICE ABU TAHER MD. SAIFUR RAHMAN

CRIMINAL REVISION NO. 5054 OF 2025

                     Nipesh Chandra Mondol....…Convict-petitioner

-Versus-

The State and another ............Opposite parties

                     None appears...........For the convict-petitioner

                     Mr S.M Bazlur Rashid, Advocate

         ......For the opposite party No. 2

                     Mr. Md. Anichur Rahman Khan, DAG with

          Mrs. Tashrifa Sultana Jali, AAG and

          Mr. Md. Emdadul Hoque, AAG

                   ........For the state Heard  on:  13.07.2026,  16.07.2026  and

19.07.2026 

                           Judgment on: The 20th of July, 2026 ABU TAHER MD. SAIFUR RAHMAN, J.

This Rule was issued calling upon the opposite parties to show cause as to why the order dated 13.08.2025 passed by the learned Joint Sessions Judge, 1st Court, Naogaon in Sessions Case No. 864 of 2024, arising out of C.R. Case No. 593 of 2023 (Manda) rejecting the convict-petitioner's application for bail pending  filing of  an  appeal  against the judgment  and  order dated 04.02.2025 whereby the petitioner was convicted under section  138  of  the  Negotiable  Instruments  Act,  1881  and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 01 (one) year and to pay a fine of Tk. 12,05,000/- out of which Tk. 12,00,000/-

was directed to be paid to the complainant and the remaining Tk. 5,000/- to be deposited into the State Treasury should not be set aside and/or such other or further order be passed as to this Court may seem fit and proper.

At the time of issuance of the Rule, the convict-petitioner was granted ad interim bail for 01 (one) year.

The complainant's case, in brief, is that the accused-petitioner, Nipesh Chandra Mondol, was the owner and possessor of 06 (six)  kathas  of  land  situated  in  Baidyapur  Mouza.  The complainant  agreed  to  purchase  the  said  land  for  a  total consideration of Tk. 21,00,000/-. Pursuant to the agreement, on 07.05.2013 the accused-petitioner executed a written agreement on three non-judicial stamps of Tk.100/- each, bearing Nos. Khas-4364173,  Khas-4364174  and  Khas-4364175, acknowledging receipt of Tk.12,00,000/- as part consideration and undertaking to execute and register the sale deed in favour of the complainant within one month. It is further alleged that, despite  repeated  requests,  the  accused-petitioner  failed  to execute  and  register  the  sale  deed.  Upon  the  complainant's demand  for  refund  of  the  advance  money,  the  accused- petitioner,  in  discharge  of  his  liability,  issued  Cheque  No. 4093495  dated  10.07.2023  for  Tk.12,00,000/-  drawn  on  his account maintained with Janata Bank Ltd., Baidyapur Bazar Branch.  The  cheque,  when  presented  for  encashment,  was dishonoured on 16.07.2023 due to insufficiency of funds. The complainant thereafter served a statutory legal notice dated

18.07.2023 demanding payment of the cheque amount within the prescribed period. Although the accused-petitioner received the notice on 27.07.2023, he failed to make payment within the statutory period. Consequently, the complainant instituted the instant case under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

The  accused-petitioner  entered  appearance  before  the trial Court and contested the case. Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned Court, by judgment and order dated 04.02.2025, found the accused-petitioner guilty under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and convicted and sentenced him accordingly. As the accused was present in Court at the time of pronouncement of judgment, he was taken into custody and committed to jail in execution of the sentence warrant.

Thereafter, on 13.08.2025, the convict-petitioner filed an application before the trial Court praying for bail to enable him to prefer an appeal. The learned Court by Order No. 10 dated 13.08.2025,  rejected  the  said  application.  Being  aggrieved thereby, the convict-petitioner preferred the present Criminal Revision and obtained the Rule.

None appears on behalf of the petitioner to press the Rule. Although the matter has appeared in the cause list on several occasions with the name of the learned Advocate for the petitioner, none has appeared at the hearing. During the hearing, this  Court  verbally  directed  the  learned  Advocate  for  the opposite party to communicate with the learned Advocate for the  petitioner.  It  was  subsequently  reported  that  such communication had been made; nevertheless, no one appeared on behalf of the petitioner. Such conduct demonstrates a lack of due  diligence  in  prosecuting  the  case  and  is  wholly unacceptable. In these circumstances, this Court is constrained to proceed with the hearing and dispose of the Rule on its merits.

Mr. S.M. Bazlur Rashid, the learned Advocate for the complainant-opposite  party  No.  2,  submits  that  the  instant revision is misconceived and not maintainable, as it challenges only the order refusing bail without assailing the judgment and order of conviction by filing the statutory appeal. He therefore prays that the Rule be discharged.

Mr.  Md.  Anichur  Rahman  Khan,  the  learned  Deputy Attorney General adopts the submissions advanced on behalf of the opposite party No. 2.

Heard the learned Advocates for the parties and perused the materials on record.

In order to appreciate the contention advanced by the learned Advocate for the complainant-opposite party No. 2, the pivotal  question  that  falls  for  determination  is  whether  the instant Criminal Revision, directed solely against the order rejecting bail, is maintainable in law when the judgment and order of conviction and sentence remain unchallenged.

It appears that the petitioner was convicted under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Section 138A of the Act provides a specific appellate remedy against a judgment of  conviction  passed  under  section  138.  On  perusal  of  the impugned  order  dated  13.08.2025  it  transpires  that  the petitioner has not preferred any appeal against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 04.02.2025. Nor has he challenged the conviction by invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court.

Therefore,  the  conviction  and  sentence  remain  valid, operative and executable in accordance with law. It is a settled principle  that  where  a  statute  provides  a  specific  appellate forum, the aggrieved person must avail such remedy and cannot circumvent the same by invoking revisional jurisdiction on a collateral  issue.  In  the  absence  of  any  challenge  to  the conviction  itself,  a  revision  directed  solely  against  an  order refusing bail is not maintainable.

In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the present revisional application is misconceived and not maintainable in law.

Accordingly, the Rule is discharged.

The order of ad-interim bail granted earlier by this Court stands recalled and cancelled.

The convict-petitioner is directed to surrender before the concerned Court below within 30 (thirty) days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and order, failing which the concerned Court below shall take necessary steps for execution of the sentence in accordance with law.

Let a copy of this judgment and order be communicated to  the  Court  below  at  once  for  information  and  necessary action.