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 to modify quantum and avert injustice.

SANDEEP SHARMA, J.

CRMPM-187 of 2026

1. For the reasons stated in the application, which is duly supported by an affidavit, this Court is convinced and satisfied that delay in maintaining the accompanying criminal appeal is neither intentional nor willful, rather same has occurred on account of circumstances which were completely beyond the control of the applicant and as such, delay of 28 days in filing the appeal, which in my considered view, has sufficiently been explained, is condoned.

2. The application stands disposed of.

Criminal Appeal (C-SB) No.53 of 2026

3. Be registered.

4. Instant criminal appeal filed under Section 495 of BNSS lays challenge to order dated 07.10.2025 passed by learned Special Judge, Mandi, District Mandi, in CIS Registration No. 718 of 2023, titled State of H.P. Vs. Bhola Ram , whereby appellant herein came to be ordered to be sent in civil imprisonment for a period of six months for his having not paid penalty amount, imposed upon him in terms of Section 446 of Cr.P.C. on account of his having failed to cause presence of accused in the trial Court.

5. Precisely, the facts of the case, as emerge from the record are that appellant stood surety of the accused Rohan Mandloi in NDPS Trial Registration No. 19 of 2025, titled State v. Rohan Mandloi . Since he failed to come present in the Court 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 dated 20.08.2019 ordered for forfeiture of surety bonds furnished by the appellant herein and issued non-bailable warrants against him for securing his presence.

6. Subsequently, learned Court below vide order dated 16.05.2023, initiated proceedings under Section 446 of Cr.P.C, against the appellant/accused and imposed penalty to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- with a direction to the Collector to recover the same as arrears of land revenue. Thereafter, vide impugned order dated 07.10.2025, appellant/accused was ordered to be detained in civil imprisonment for six months or till the payment of the amount, whichever is earlier. In the afore background, appellant-accused has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, praying therein to set aside aforesaid order.

7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused material available on record vis-à-vis reasoning assigned in the order dated 07.10.2025, this Court finds that before initiation of proceedings under Section 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.

8. Though Mr. Gurinder Singh Parmar, learned counsel for the appellant, vehemently argued that impugned order dated 07.10.2025 is not in accordance with law, but he was unable to dispute that despite his having received notice, appellant failed to cause presence of the accused during trial. He was also unable to dispute that even in the proceedings under Section 446 of Cr.P.C, appellant failed to cause the presence of the accused before the learned trial court.

9. Needless to say, very purpose of taking surety at the time of enlarging the accused on bail is to ensure presence of the accused at the time of the trial. Since appellant-accused had furn