IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 294 of 2025 Reserved on: 07.08.2025 Decided on: 30.08.2025 Anup Singh … Appellant Versus State of H.P.

…Respondent __________________________________________________________

Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge Whether approved for reportting? yes ________________________r___________________________

For the Appellant : Mr. R.K. Sharma, Senior Advocate, with Ms. Vidushi Sharma, Advocate.

For the Respondent : Mr. Tejasvi Sharma and Mr.

Mohinder Zharaick, Additional Advocates General with Ms. Ranjna Patial, Deputy Advocate General.

Virender Singh, Judge Appellant Anup Singh has preferred the present H appeal, under Section 495 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as ‘BNSS’), against the orders dated 26.12.2023, dated 05.07.2024 and subsequent recovery proceedings initiated vide orders dated 28.12.2024, 24.02.2025 & 21.04.2025, passed by the learned Special Judge, Mandi, District Mandi, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as ‘the trial Court’), in the proceedings under Section 446 Cr.P.C., in Cr.MA CIS Reg. No. 74/2024, titled as ‘State of H.P. Vs Anup Singh’, whereby the appellant has been burdened with the penalty of Rs. 5,00,000/-, for non production of the accused. . 2. The appeal has been filed on the ground that police registered a case FIR No. 166 of 2018, dated 11.07.2018, with Police Station Sundernagar, Doistrict Mandi, H.P., under Sections 29 & 29 of ND&PS A ct, against Tarun Kumar son of Yoginder Singh. For said Tarun Kumar, appellant Anup Singh stood surety. However, due to the non appearance of accused Taroun Kumar on 26.12.2023, his personal and surety bonds were forfeited to the State of H.P. and his presence was ordered to be secured by issuing Non Bailable hWarrant and proceedings under Section 446 Cr.P.C. were ginitiated against him, as well as, the appellant.

3. In pursuance of the said notices, issued against appellant Anup Singh, he has not filed any reply, despite number of opportunities, granted to the appellant. As such, the learned trial Court on 05.07.2024, has imposed the penalty of Rs. 5,00,000/- and issued the recovery warrants.

The order dated 05.07.2024, is reproduced as under:-

“Reply has not been filed on behalf of respondent despite number of opportunity granted to the respondent, hence, there is no option but to consider the matter on merits.

2. The respondent had stood surety for accused Tarun Kumar and undertaken to ensure the performance of the condition of the personal bond. The accused Tarun Kumar had undertaken to appear before the Court and in the event of default to pay a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- to the State of H.P.

3. The accused Tarun Kumar did not appear before the Court on 26.12.2023; hence, his personal and surety bonds were forfeited to the state of HP. Notice under Section 446 Cr.P.C. was ofrdered to be issued to the respondent-surety to show cause as to why the amount undertaken to be paid by the surety be not recovered from him.

4. The surety was served on 18.01.2024 and the respondent appetared before the Court and prayed time to file the reply. Thereafter, on 05.03.2024 the respondent not appeared before the Court and he was ordered to be served by way of bailable warrants returnable for 30.04.2024 and on that day, the learned counsel for the respoondent appear on his behalf and prayed time for filing the reply, however, the reply has not been filed till date. The respondent failed to assign any reasonable cause for non production of the accused. Since, the surety has failed to produce the accused or to show any reasonable cause for non production of the accused; therefore, there is no option but to impose the penalty of Rs. 5,00,000/- undertaken to be paid by the surety in case of default. Hence, a penalty of Rs. 5,00,000/- is imposed upon the surety. Let the warrant of recovery be issued to the collector returnable for 30.09.2024.”

H 4. The above orders have been assailed by the appel