Allowed¶9

State of Haryana v. Mukesh Alias Mukhiya and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC3 Dec 2025CRM-A/422/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

State of Haryana v. Mukesh alias Mukhiya and Ors; CRM-A-422-2021; leave to appeal granted against acquittal dated 16.04.2021; main appeal admitted; accused-respondents to execute attendance bond within two months and furnish personal bond and surety of Rs. 25,000 each before Trial Court/Duty Magistrate; furnishing of bonds deemed acceptance of bail-order terms; bench Anoop Chitkara and Sukhvinder Kaur; order dated 03.12.2025.

What did the court decide?

Leave to appeal granted to the State; main appeal admitted; accused-respondents to execute attendance bonds within two months and 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. ¶9

State of Haryana Vs Mukesh Alias Mukhiya and Ors. — 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 Haryana against the judgment of acquittal dated 16.04.2021. +1 more

¶7

Court's answer

Leave to appeal was granted to the State of Haryana against the judgment of acquittal dated 16.04.2021.

¶9

Ratio / Principle

After hearing, the main appeal was admitted.

¶13

Key takeaways

The accused-respondents are 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-respondents 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.ratio¶15
Before accepting the sureties, the concerned Court must satisfy itself that, if the accused fails to appear, the surety is capable of producing the accused before the Court.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

CRM-A-422-2021, State of Haryana v. Mukesh alias Mukhiya and Ors (decided 03.12.2025 by Anoop Chitkara and Sukhvinder Kaur, JJ.): The State sought leave to appeal against the acquittal of the respondents dated 16.04.2021, contending there was sufficient evidence for conviction and no appreciation of evidence in the acquittal judgment; counsel for the respondents maintained the acquittal was well reasoned. Leave to appeal was granted and the main appeal admitted. The accused-respondents were directed to execute bonds for attendance within two months, undertaking to appear in this Court if the appeal is allowed, and to furnish a personal bond of Rs. 25,000 and one surety of Rs. 25,000 to the satisfaction of the concerned Trial Court/Duty Magistrate, the concerned Court being required to satisfy itself that the surety can produce the accused if he fails to appear. Furnishing of the personal bonds is deemed acceptance of the stipulations, terms and conditions of the bail order; the Registry was to communicate the order to the trial Court, and on failure to furnish bond the concerned Court is to proceed in accordance with law. No certified copy is required, as a downloaded copy attested by counsel suffices.

¶1

222 CRM-A-422-2021

¶2

STATE OF HARYANA V/S MUKESH ALIAS MUKHIYA AND ORS

¶3

Present: Mr. Shiva Khurmi, DAG, Haryana.

¶4

Mr. JP Sharma, Advocate for the respondents.

¶5

��

¶6

CRM-A-422-2021

¶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 respondents. There is no appreciation of evidence in judgment of acquittal dated 16.04.2021.

¶8

Counsel appearing for the respondents 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-respondents, 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-respondents 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

JYOTI2025.12.05 10:32 of the all stipulations, terms, and conditions of this bail order. I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶18

CRM-A-422-2021

¶19

-2-

¶20

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

¶21

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.

¶22

(ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE

¶23

(SUKHVINDER KAUR) JUDGE

¶24

03.12.2025 jyoti3

¶25

JYOTI 2025.12.05 10:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

State of Haryana v. Mukesh Alias Mukhiya and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Haryana v. Mukesh Alias Mukhiya and Ors.

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

Kashmira Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

State of Punjab Vs Jarmanjit Singh Alias Jammu