IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.Appeal No.106 of 2010.. Date of Decision: 17.6.2010. _______________________________________________ Paras Ram ….Appellant. Versus. State of H.P. ….Respondent. Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, Judge. Whether approved for reporting1? For the petitioner : Mr. Ajay Chandel, Advocate. For Respondent. : Ms. Ruma Kaushik, Addl. Advocate General. Dev Darshan Sud, J.(Oral). The appellant has preferred this appeal against the order passed by learned Fast Track Court, Kullu, imposing penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- on the appellant herein for violating the conditions of the surety furnished for the accused. The application which was filed states that the appellant stood surety bonds for Vinod Kumar. The accused was absent on 28.1.2010 on which date the Court issued notice to the appellant as also non-bailable warrants against the accused. He pleads that he tried to trace out the accused but was un- Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment?yes. 2 successful. He is a poor and old villager and cannot bear to pay a heavy amount of penalty. The learned court dismissed the application and levied penalty of Rs.1,00,000/- on the appellant. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that while dismissing the application, the learned Court holds that the appellant herein had undertaken to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- to the State in case of violation of the condition of the surety furnished by him. The main contention urged is that the non-bailable warrants issued to the accused have been returned with the report that the whereabouts of Vinod Kumar are not known and he has not visited his house for long time. Learned counsel submits that when the police force could not locate him it is not possible for the appellant to have produced the accused in the Court. This submission made by the learned counsel cannot be accepted. The surety was given presumably on the ground that the appellant was familiar with the accused and was in a position to have produced him in Court or ensured his presence when the case was taken up by the Court. An undertaking was also given to deposit a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- in case of failure of the appellant to produce the accused in Court. Surely, the appellant cannot plead poverty in these circumstances when he knew about the amount of bond. This submission, therefore, does require to be rejected out rightly. I also find from the record that the application has not been supported by an affidavit and the drafting is very casual. 3 In these circumstances, I do not find any merit in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed. However, taking into consideration the totality the facts and circumstances of the case, the amount is reduced to Rs. 50,000/- . (Dev Darshan Sud), Judge. June 17, 2010(R)