Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
SANDEEP SHARMA
Promila – Appellant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh – Respondent
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. Since despite service, appellant failed to cause presence of the accused in the trial Court, court below vide order dated 16.05.2023 ordered for forfeiture of surety bonds furnished by the appellant herein and issued non-bailable warrants against her for securing her presence.
3. Subsequently, vide order dated 04.05.2024, learned Court below initiated proceedings under Section 4
Court holds that the penalty for surety bond forfeiture must consider the surety's efforts and circumstances; excessive penalties can be modified at judicial discretion.
The court has discretion under Section 446 Cr.P.C to remit a portion of the penalty imposed on a surety, considering the financial situation of the surety and efforts to secure the accused's attendan....
The court has discretion to remit penalties imposed on sureties under Section 446(3), considering the circumstances of the case and ensuring a fair outcome for the surety's financial status.
Under Section 446(3) Cr.P.C., courts may discretionarily remit portion of penalty on forfeited surety bonds, factoring surety's sincere efforts, financial hardship and family impact, even in appeal t....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to adhere to the prescribed procedure under Section 446 CrPC for the forfeiture of surety bonds, including issuing show cause notic....
A surety must be afforded an opportunity to contest the imposition of a penalty for non-production of an accused, adhering to principles of natural justice.
Procedure when bond has been forfeited - Without discussing application of sub-section(3) of Section 446 Cr.P.C. and benefit conferred for remission of portion of penalty, cannot be said to have forc....
The court has discretion to reduce penalty amounts imposed on sureties for bail bonds under specific circumstances.
The court can exercise discretion to reduce penalty amounts in bond forfeiture cases based on the parties' circumstances.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
