IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Cr. Appeals No. 40 & 41/2011 Date of decision: 16. 5. 2011 Cr. A No. 40/2011. Hotam Ram …..Appellant Versus State of H.P. ……Respondent Cr. A No. 41/ 2011. Nathu Ram …..Appellant. Versus State of H.P. ….Respondent. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting ?1 For the Appellant: Mr. Naveen Bhardwaj, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. A.K. Bansal, Addl. Advocate General. Surinder Singh, J. (Oral) Heard and gone through the record. Appellants in Sessions trial No. 32/2007 under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act stood sureties for accused Jai Bahadur, a Nepali, who was allegedly found possessing commercial quantity of charas and executed bond in the sum of ` one lacs each. 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?. yes - 2 - During the trial, the main accused Jai Bahadur, did not put in appearance and his service could not be effected even by coercive methods. The appellants also failed to produce him. Consequently, show- cause notices were issued to the appellants/applicants in terms of Section 446 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as also to the accused. It was averred in replies that accused Jai Bahadur had left Manali in the month of September, on the pretext of visiting his sister at Dehradoon. Thereafter, he did not turn up. They have also tried their best to locate him but in vain. 2. The appellants herein also examined themselves and pleaded mercy being poor rustic villagers. 3. The learned trial Court examined their pleas in the light whatever they have stated before it and came to the conclusion that they willfully and knowingly stood sureties to accused Jai Bahadur and undertook to produce him on each and every date of hearing. The Court while relying upon the solemn undertaking, released Jai Bahadur on bail and now the main accused has jumped out the bail, the appellants/sureties herein have failed to produce him. Thus, there is breach of the terms and - 3 - conditions of the bonds given before the Court. Accordingly, the learned trial Court confiscated the bond amount and ordered for its recovery through Collector, Kullu, H.P. 4. Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal is filed by them after the delay of 189 days on the ground that they were not given proper opportunity to explain their position and warrants were not issued for the presence of the accused. These grounds are, prima facie, contrary to the findings of the learned trial court. 5. The reasons stated for condoning the delay in filing the appeal that despite best efforts by the appellants/applicants to arrange for money found no other way, but mustered their courage to approach this Court to file appeal, do not constitute sufficient cause, as such the applications Cr.M.P.(M) Nos. 138 & 139/2011 are dismissed. 6. Consequently both the appeals are also dismissed. Cr.M.P No. 115 & 116/2011. In view of the dismissal of the main appeals, the present applications are also dismissed. May 16, 2011 (Surinder Singh),J (cm)