Himachal Pradesh High Court
Jai Kumar vs . State Of Hp on 30 April, 2026
Cr. Appeal No. 307 of 2015 30.04.2026 Present: None for the appellant.
Mr. Ajit Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, for the respondent-State.
of Surety Prakash Chand has been served through his brother which is a valid service. However, neither he rt has appeared before the Court nor assigned any reasonable cause for not producing the accused.
Perusal of record shows that the accused was not present on the previous date of hearing and the Court had issued the proclamation for securing his presence.
Surety-Prakash Chand had undertaken to produce him before the Court on each and every date of hearing and in case of making default, to pay an amount of ₹50,000/- to the State of H.P. Surety-Prakash Chand had failed to honour the undertaking furnished by him in the surety bond to produce the accused before the Court on each and every date of hearing and he has also failed to assign any reasonable cause for the default; therefore, he is held liable to pay ₹50,000/- as undertaken by him in the surety bond furnished by him.
::: Downloaded on - 02/05/2026 12:45:33 :::CISHence, the penalty of ₹50,000/- is imposed .
upon the surety-Prakash Chand. The warrant of recovery be issued to Collector, Mandi, HP for recovering the amount as arrears of land revenue and submit the report within six weeks.
of List the matter after six weeks.
rt (Rakesh Kainthla)
Judge
30th April, 2026
(Chander)
::: Downloaded on - 02/05/2026 12:45:33 :::CIS