As a cheque is given as a security amount, the provisions of Section 138 of the negotiable instrument Act cannot be attracted. Also, the debt if any would be barred by a period of limitation.
The offence of dishonour of cheque is made out only if the cheque had been issued for the discharge of any debt or other liability.
In this regard, it may be noted that in the case of Vijay v. Laxman, (2013) 3 SCC 86, the Supreme Court upheld the acquittal of the accused in a cheque dishonour case on the ground that the accused, who was supplier of milk, was given the price of the milk in advance as per the trade practice, in acknowledgment and by way of security for which amount the accused had issued the cheque in question.
Likewise, in the case of Sudhir Kumar Bhalla v. Jagdish Chand, (2008) 7 SCC 137, the Supreme Court set aside the order of the High Court, inter alia, on the ground that the High Court had not addressed the legal question that the criminal liability of the accused under the provisions of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is attracted only on account of the dishonour of the cheques issued in discharge of liability or debt, but not on account of issuance of security cheques. In this case, the Supreme Court remitted the case back to the High Court for reconsideration.
The directors would have to seek bail from court as well and exemption application for permanent exemption of the senior citizen lady director can be filed in the court where the present cases at being tried.
There is no set formula for deciding the bail amount and it is totally upon the descretion of the magistrate trying your cases.