Allowed¶9

State of Punjab v. Jarmanjit Singh Alias Jammu

Punjab & Haryana HC3 Dec 2025CRM-A/1128/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CRM-A-1128-2019; State of Punjab v. Jarmanjit Singh alias Jammu; leave to appeal granted against acquittal dated 02.01.2019; main appeal admitted; attendance bond within two months; personal bond Rs. 25,000 and one surety Rs. 25,000; Trial Court/Duty Magistrate; deemed acceptance of bond terms; failure to furnish bond; Anoop Chitkara J.; Sukhvinder Kaur J.; order dated 03.12.2025.

What did the court decide?

Leave to appeal granted against the acquittal judgment dated 02.01.2019 and main appeal admitted; accused-respondent to execute attendance bond within two months and furnish personal bond of Rs. 25,000 with one surety of Rs. 25,000. ¶9

State of Punjab Vs Jarmanjit Singh Alias Jammu — Punjab & Haryana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶9

Issue for consideration

Whether leave to appeal should be granted to the State of Punjab against the judgment of acquittal dated 02.01.2019.

¶9

Court's answer

Leave to appeal was granted to the State of Punjab against the judgment of acquittal dated 02.01.2019.

¶9

Ratio / Principle

The main appeal was admitted after hearing.

¶13

Key takeaways

The accused-respondent is to execute a bond for attendance within two months, undertaking to appear in this Court in case the appeal is allowed.ratio¶14
The accused-respondent shall furnish a personal bond of Rs. 25,000 and one surety for Rs. 25,000 to the satisfaction of the concerned Trial Court/Duty Magistrate; before accepting sureties the Court must satisfy itself that the surety is capable of producing the accused before the Court if he fails to appear.ratio¶15
Furnishing of the personal bonds shall be deemed acceptance of the stipulations, terms and conditions of the order (sentence truncated in source text).

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal miscellaneous appeal CRM-A-1128-2019: State of Punjab sought leave to appeal against the acquittal of Jarmanjit Singh alias Jammu (judgment dated 02.01.2019), contending there was no appreciation of evidence in the acquittal judgment; counsel for the respondent defended it as well reasoned. Leave to appeal was granted and the main appeal was admitted. The accused-respondent was directed to execute a bond for attendance within two months (undertaking to appear if the appeal is allowed) and to furnish a personal bond of Rs. 25,000 with one surety of Rs. 25,000 to the satisfaction of the concerned Trial Court/Duty Magistrate, the surety being capable of producing the accused if he fails to appear; furnishing of the bonds is deemed acceptance of the order's terms, and on failure to furnish bond the concerned Court is to proceed in accordance with law. Order dated 03.12.2025 by Anoop Chitkara and Sukhvinder Kaur, Judges.

¶1

217 CRM-A-1128-2019

¶2

STATE OF PUNJAB V/S JARMANJIT SINGH ALIAS JAMMU

¶3

Present: Mr. Akshay Kumar, AAG, Punjab.

¶4

Mr. Dhawaljeet Dutta, Advocate for the respondent.

¶5

��

¶6

CRM-A-1128-2019

¶7

Learned State counsel submits that they have a very good case on merit and there is sufficient evidence on record which is sufficient for conviction of respondent. There is no appreciation of evidence in judgment of acquittal dated 02.01.2019.

¶8

Counsel appearing for the respondent submits that the judgment of acquittal is well reasoned.

¶9

Leave to appeal granted.

¶10

Registry to assign number to appeal.

Main appeal

Heard.

Admitted.

The accused-respondent, to execute a bond for attendance within two months, undertaking to appear in this Court, in case appeal is allowed.

¶15

Given above, the accused-respondent shall furnish a personal bond of Rs. Twenty five Thousand only (INR 25,000/-), and furnishing one surety for Rs. Twenty five thousand only (INR 25,000/-), to the satisfaction of the concerned Trial Court/Duty Magistrate. Before accepting the sureties, the concerned Court must satisfy that if the accused fails to appear in Court, then such surety is capable of producing the accused before the Court.

¶16

The furnishing of the personal bonds shall be deemed acceptance

¶17

JYOTI2025.12.04 11:00 of the all stipulations, terms, and conditions of this bail order. I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶18

CRM-A-1128-2019 -2-

¶19

Registry to communicate this order to the trial Court without any delay. In case of failure of respondent to furnish bond, the concerned Court shall proceed further in accordance with law.

¶20

There would be no need for a certified copy of this order for furnishing bonds, and any Advocate for the accused can download this order along with case status from the official web page of this Court and attest it to be a true copy. In case the attesting officer wants to verify the authenticity, such an officer can also verify its authenticity and may download and use the downloaded copy for attesting bonds.

¶21

(ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE

¶22

(SUKHVINDER KAUR) JUDGE

¶23

03.12.2025 jyoti3

¶24

JYOTI 2025.12.04 11:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

State of Punjab v. Jarmanjit Singh Alias Jammu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Punjab v. Jarmanjit Singh Alias Jammu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bijender Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Mohanjinder Singh @ Mohan Singh Vs State of Punjab and Others

Yamin Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Jogender Vs State of Haryana and Others

State of Haryana Vs Mukesh Alias Mukhiya and Ors.

Kashmira Vs State of Punjab and Ors.