Krishna Devi vs State of Himachal Pradesh

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(HP) 136

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

Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Raj Kumar Verma, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General and Mr. Ravi Chauhan & Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General.

Table of Content
1. appellant's surety responsibilities outlined. (Para 1 , 2)
2. court finds no illegality in the penalty order. (Para 3 , 7 , 9)
3. court must determine authority to reduce penalty. (Para 4 , 5 , 10)
4. court's discretion to remit penalty emphasized. (Para 6)
5. court precedents support discretion in remitting penalty. (Para 11)
6. modified penalty imposed based on appellant's circumstances. (Para 12 , 13)

JUDGMENT :
Sandeep Sharma, J.

By way of instant criminal appeal, challenge has been laid to order dated 16.3.2024, passed by learned Special Judge, Shimla, District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, in Cr.MP No. 900 of 2024 titled as State of H.P. Versus Mohammad Danish , whereby penalty to the tune of Rs.50,000/- 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 initiated proceedings under Section 446 Cr.PC a