Sanjeev Kumar vs. State of HP Cr. Revision No. 206 of 2016 15.5.2026 Present: Mr Surender Verma, Advocate, vice Mr Sanjeev Kumar Thakur, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr Ajit Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, for the respondent-State. Cr. MP No. 1112 of 2026 The present application has been filed to recall the orders dated 25.2.2026 and 24.3.2026, passed by this Court. It has been asserted that bailable warrants in the sum of ₹50,000/- with one surety in the like amount were issued against the petitioner returnable for 10.12.2025, and a production notice was issued to the surety for the date fixed. However, the Court was not held on 10.12.2025, and an order was passed directing the petitioner to file the correct address of the surety. The learned counsel filed the correct address of the surety but mentioned the wrong revision number. The matter was listed before the Court, and the Court ordered the furnishing of a fresh surety bond within three weeks. The petitioner filed the correct address of the surety on the next day, but it was not brought on record. The Court passed an order withdrawing the protection granted to the petitioner on the basis of the ofÏce report that a surety bond had not been furnished. The correct address could not be filed because of the counsel's error. Hence, it was prayed that the present application be allowed and the order passed by this Court be recalled. 2. Heard. 3. The record shows that the petitioner had failed to appear on the date fixed, and the Court issued bailable warrants in the sum of ₹ 50,000/- with one surety to the like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting OfÏcer. The matter was taken up on 10.12.2025, and it was found that the surety’s address was not correct. Hence, the surety was directed to file the correct address within a week. The correct address was not filed; therefore, the Court ordered that a fresh surety bond be filed in terms of the order dated 22.7.2016. The fresh surety bonds were not furnished, and the Court ordered the withdrawal of the protection granted by the Court till the time of the furnishing of the surety bond. 4. Therefore, it is apparent that the Court had repeatedly asked the petitioner to furnish the surety bond, but he failed to do so. He made a statement on the afÏdavit that the Court was not held on 10.12.2025, but the Court had directed the furnishing of the correct address of the surety on 10.12.2025. Thus, the statement on the afÏdavit is incorrect. The furnishing of the fresh surety bond was necessary because the surety’s address was not correct, and the correct address was not being furnished despite directions. Since a person cannot remain on bail without furnishing the surety bonds, the petitioner is bound to furnish a fresh surety bond. The Court had not recalled the protection granted to the petitioner absolutely, but till the time the bond is furnished, which means that the petitioner can furnish a fresh surety bond at any time, and the protection would automatically revive. Recall of the order would mean that the petitioner would remain free without furnishing a proper surety bond, which would be contrary to the order of this Court enlarging the petitioner on bail with surety. Hence, it is impermissible to recall the order, and the present application cannot be allowed. However, it is clarified that in case the fresh surety bond is furnished, the order withdrawing the protection would come to an end. 5. The present application stands disposed of with this clarification. Cr. Revision No. 206 of 2016 List the matter for hearing in due course. (Rakesh Kainthla) Judge 15th May, 2026 (Chander)