State of Hp Vs Sandeep

¶1

State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Sandeep & Anr.

¶2

Cr. Appeal No. 475 of 2025

¶3

15.07.2026 Present: Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Additional Advocate General, for the appellant-State.

¶4

Ms. Kanta Thakur, Advocate, for the respondents.

¶5

Cr. MP No. 2937 of 2026

¶6

After issuance of notice to respondents in compliance of the order dated 08.05.2025, Ms. Kanta Thakur, Advocate, put in appearance on their behalf by filing a Memo of Appearance before the Additional Registrar (Judicial) on 26.06.2025. However, no Power of Attorney on behalf of the respondents was filed.

¶7

Thereafter, on 04.08.2025, application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal along with the application for leave to appeal was allowed and after granting leave to appeal, present appeal was registered and respondents were directed to furnish bail bonds in the sum of ₹1,00,000/- each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned Trial Court within a period of four weeks.

¶8

Thereafter, respondent No.1, Sandeep, furnished the requisite bail bonds. However, on behalf of respondent No.2, Om Prakash, despite the matter having been adjourned on numerous occasions neither Power of Attorney was filed nor the bail bonds were furnished.

¶9

Ultimately, on 04.06.2026, this Court was constrained to issue Non-Bailable Warrants to secure the presence of applicant-respondent No.2, Om Prakash.

¶10

In the aforesaid backdrop, now applicantrespondent No.2, Om Prakash, has appeared before this Court today by filing present application seeking recall of Non-Bailable Warrants issued against him vide order dated 04.06.2026, with further prayer to release him on bail by explaining reasons for not furnishing bail bonds and filing Power of Attorney.

¶11

According to respondent No.2, Om Prakash, he could not remain in contact with his counsel due to his ailment. When he came to Kalka in the first week of July, 2026, he met respondent No.1, Sandeep, who apprised him of the pendency of the present appeal. Thereupon, the applicant contacted his counsel, who informed him about the issuance of the Non-Bailable Warrants against him.

¶12

It has been submitted that immediately upon acquiring knowledge of the issuance of the Non-Bailable Warrants, applicant has approached this Court by filing present application.

¶13

Learned counsel for the applicant/respondent No.2 submits that, since the applicant/respondent No.2, Om Prakash, rushed to attend the Court immediately after knowing about the issuance of the Non-Bailable Warrants, he could not arrange a surety today. However, he undertakes to furnish the requisite bail bonds along with one surety, as directed by this Court, well before the next date of hearing.

¶14

Considering the reasons assigned by respondent No.2, Om Prakash, to be genuine, Non-Bailable Warrants issued

¶15

against the applicant/respondent No.2, Om Prakash, in furtherance of the order dated 04.06.2026 are recalled unexecuted. Respondent No.2, Om Prakash, is directed to furnish personal bond in the sum of ₹1,00,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court on or before 18.07.2026 , undertaking therein to appear before this Court as and when directed to do so and also to surrender, to serve the sentence, in the event the appeal is allowed.

¶16

Learned counsel for the applicant/respondent No.2, Om Prakash, shall produce a photocopy of the bail bond so furnished on the next date of hearing.

¶17

The original bail bonds furnished by the applicant/respondent No.2, Om Prakash, shall be forwarded by the Trial Court to the Registry of this Court for placing the same on record.

¶18

Application stands allowed and disposed of

¶19

accordingly.

¶20

Cr. Appeal No. 475 of 2025

¶21

List on 20.07.2026 the date already fixed.

¶22

(Vivek Singh Thakur) Judge

¶23

(Ranjan Sharma) Judge