YASH PAL Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Instant Criminal Appeal filed under Sec. 495 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, lays challenge to order dtd. 24/2/2025, whereby learned Special Judge, Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, after having forfeited the surety bonds furnished by the appellant/surety, proceeded to impose penalty of Rs.1,00,000.00 on account of his having failed to cause presence of the accused Kunal Sharma during trial.

(2.) Precisely, the facts of the case, as emerge from the record are that appellant stood surety of the accused Kunal Sharma in NDPS Trial No. 18 of 2024, titled State v. Kunal Sharma alias Raunak and others. Since he failed to come present in the trial despite notices, learned trial court called upon the appellant to cause presence of the accused being surety. Since despite service, appellant failed to cause presence of the accused in the trial Court, court below vide order dtd. 24/2/2025 ordered for forfeiture of of surety bonds furnished by the appellant herein and initiated proceedings under Sec. 446 of Cr.P.C, thereby imposing penalty to the tune of Rs.1, 00,000.00 with a direction to the Collector to recover the same as arrears of land revenue. In the aforesaid background, appellant- accused has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, praying therein to set-aside aforesaid order.

(3.) Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused material available on record vis-a-vis reasoning assigned in the orders dtd. 24/2/2025, this Court finds that before initiation of proceedings under Sec. 446 Cr.P.C, learned court below afforded opportunity of hearing to the accused, but despite opportunity, he failed to appear before the learned trial court, as a result thereof, court below had no option but to impose the penalty.