A bail bond for an accused's appearance is automatically forfeited upon the accused's failure to appear in court. No prior show-cause notice is required for this forfeiture; such notice is only necessary at the subsequent stage of recovering the penalty to allow the surety to provide grounds for mitigation.

Ravi Kumar ...Appellant Versus State of H.P. ...Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?¹ No For the Appellant : Mr J.P. Sharma, Advocate.

For the rCespondent/State : Mr Ajit Sharma, Deputy Advocate General.

Rhakesh Kainthla, Judge The appellant stood surety for accused Ravi Kumar, S/o Parveen Kumar undertaking to produce him in the Court of learned Special Judge, Chamba or any other Court to answer the charge of the commission of an offence punishable under Section 20 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (in short ‘NDPS Act’) and in case of failure to pay an amount of ₹1,00,000/- to the State of H.P. The accused failed to appear before the Court 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.

and the Court issued bailable warrants to secure his presence.

However, he failed to appear before the learned TPrial Court;

hence, the Court cancelled and forfeited the bail .bonds of the accused to the State of Himachal Pradesh and initiated proceedings under Section 446 of Cr. P.C. A notice was served upon the present appellant, but he failed to appear before the Court, and his presence was also secured by way of bailable warrants. He filed a reply rasserting that he was not aware that the accused had not appeared before the Court on 07.09.2024 or before that, and he sought an opportunity of one month to produce the accused Ravi Kumar before the Court. The Court held vide o rder dated 17.09.2024 that since the appellant/respondent had failed to produce the accused, he was liable to pay a sum of ₹1,00,000/- to the State of H.P. Consequently, warrants of Hrecovery were issued to the District Collector for realising the amount. Aggrieved by the order, the appellant has filed the present appeal.

2. The matter came up for hearing before this Court, and the court ordered on 19^th June, 2024, that the question whether a notice is required to be issued to the surety before forfeiture of the bonds had already been referred to a larger Bench in Madan Verma Vs. State of H.P., Criminal Appeal No.344 of 2023 and the answer was awaited. Therefore, a direction was issued to list the mPatter after the receipt of the answer to the reference. Learned c.ounsel for the appellant requested on 17^th March, 2026, to hear the matter finally; therefore, the matter was heard finally without awaiting the outcome.

3. Mr J.P. Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant, submitted that the learned Trial Court erred in issuing a warrant under section 421 of the CrPC to the District Collector to realise the amount by sale of the immovable property. The appellant was not served as per the law, and the order dated 17^th September, 2024, is bad in the eyes of the law. The appellant is the sole earner of the family, and in case of the sale of the property, the appellant and his family members would suffer irreparable harm. No adequate opportunity of hearing was provided to the appellant before imposing the penalty. Learned Trial Court failed to notice the judgment of this Court in Sunita Vs. State of H.P. passed in Criminal Appeal No.189 of 2023, wherein, this Court had set aside a similar order after relying upon the earlier judgment of this Court in Narata Verma Vs. State of H.P, 1993(2) Shimla Law Cases

193. Hence, he prayed that the present appeal be allowed and the order passed by the learned Trial Court be set aside. P

4. Mr Ajit Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondent/State, submitted that the appellant was properly served. He was provided an opportunityf to produce the accused, but he failed to do so. The accused was declared a proclaimed offender. The appellant had undertaken to produce the accused or to pay an amount of ₹1,00,000/- to the State; therefore, the learned Trial Court