Promila vs State of Himachal Pradesh

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(HP) 98

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
SANDEEP SHARMA
Promila – Appellant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh – Respondent

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mohar Chand Bhardwaj
For the Respondents: Rajan Kahol, Vishal Panwar, Ravi Chauhan, Anish Banshtu

Table of Content
1. challenge against penalty imposed for surety default. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. court's discretion in penalty based on circumstances. (Para 4 , 6 , 10 , 11)
3. arguments regarding the penalty imposed. (Para 5 , 12)
4. interpretation of section 446 cr.p.c on penalty remission. (Para 8 , 9)
5. modification of penalty imposed based on appellant's means. (Para 14 , 15 , 16)

JUDGMENT :

SANDEEP SHARMA, J.

1. Instant Criminal Appeal filed under Section 495 (ii) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, lays challenge to order dated 04.05.2024, whereby learned Special Judge, Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, after having forfeited the surety bonds furnished by the appellant/surety, proceeded to impose penalty of Rs.2,00,000/- on account of her having failed to cause presence of the accused Vipin Kumar and Ankit Kumar during trial.

2. Precisely, the facts of the case, as emerge from the record are that appellant stood surety for the accused Vipin Kumar and Ankit Kumar in Session Trial No. 69 of 2022, titled State v. Vipin and Anr. Since they failed to come present in the trial despite notices, learned trial Court called upon the petitioner to cause presence of the accused being surety.