Hitesh Kumar vs State of Himachal Pradesh

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(HP) 132

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
SANDEEP SHARMA
Hitesh Kumar – Appellant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh – Respondent

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Jagmohan Sharma, Advocate. Vice Mr. Kush Sharma, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General and Mr. Ravi Chauhan & Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General.

JUDGMENT :

Sandeep Sharma, J.

Cr.MP(M) No. 2466 of 2024

For the reasons stated in the application, this Court is convinced and satisfied that delay in maintaining the accompanying appeal is neither intentional nor willful, rather same has occurred on account of circumstances, which were completely beyond the control of the applicant, as such, delay, if any, occurred in filing the accompanying appeal, is condoned. The application is disposed of.

Cr.Appeal No. 9 of 2026

Be registered.

By way of instant criminal appeal, challenge has been laid to order dated 1. 7.2023, passed by learned Additional Judge Rohru, District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, in Cr.MP No. 246 of 2021 titled as State of H.P. Versus Hitesh Kumar (surety), whereby penalty to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- has been imposed upon the appellant on account of his failure to cause presence of the accused in the aforesaid sessions trial. ,

2. Precisely, the facts of the case, as emerge from the record, are that at the time of enlarging the accused on bail in the trial, appellant stood surety to the accused named herein above and since appellant failed to cause presence of the accused during the pend-ency of the trial, court below held hi