Allowed¶13

Nanho Devi v. Uday and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC17 Feb 2026CRM-A/1540/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Nanho Devi v Uday and Others; CRM-A-1540-2024; leave to appeal granted against acquittal judgment dated 02.07.2024; appeal admitted; attendance bond within two months; personal bond Rs. 25,000; one surety Rs. 25,000; Trial Court/Duty Magistrate; deemed acceptance of bail-order stipulations; Registry to communicate order to trial Court; bench Anoop Chitkara and Sukhvinder Kaur; decided 17.02.2026.

What did the court decide?

Leave to appeal granted against the acquittal judgment dated 02.07.2024; main appeal admitted; accused-respondents to execute an attendance bond 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, undertaking to appear before this Court if the appeal is allowed. ¶13

Nanho Devi Vs Uday and Others — Punjab & Haryana HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶13

Issue for consideration

Whether leave to appeal should be granted to the applicant against the judgment of acquittal dated 02.07.2024.

¶13

Court's answer

Leave to appeal was granted to the applicant against the judgment of acquittal dated 02.07.2024.

¶13

Ratio / Principle

After hearing counsel, the main appeal was admitted, and the Registry was directed to assign a number to the appeal.

¶17

Key takeaways

The accused-respondents were directed to execute a bond for attendance within two months, undertaking to appear before this Court in case the appeal is allowed.ratio¶18
The accused-respondents shall 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; before accepting sureties, the concerned Court must satisfy itself that the surety is capable of producing the accused before the Court if the accused fails to appear.ratio¶19

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

NANHO DEVI v. UDAY AND OTHERS — CRM-A-1540-2024 (decision dated 17.02.2026; bench: Anoop Chitkara and Sukhvinder Kaur, JJ.). Leave to appeal granted against a judgment of acquittal dated 02.07.2024; the applicant's counsel had submitted that the acquittal judgment contained no appreciation of evidence and that the record sufficed for conviction of the respondents, while counsel for the private respondent maintained the acquittal was well reasoned. The main appeal was admitted and the Registry directed to assign it a number. As a condition consequent to admission, the accused-respondents were directed to execute a bond for attendance within two months, undertaking to appear before the 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 of the surety's capacity to produce the accused. Furnishing of the bonds was deemed acceptance of all stipulations of the order; the Registry was to communicate the order to the trial Court without delay.

¶1

235 CRM-A-1540-2024

¶2

NANHO DEVI V/S UDAY AND OTHERS

¶3

Present: Ms. Kashish Mehta, Advocate, for Mr. Jitender Singh Dadwal, Advocate, for the applicant.

¶4

Mr. Akashdeep Singh, Advocate, with Mr. K.J.S. Bhullar, Advocate, for respondent No.1.

¶5

Mr. Vishal Pundir, Advocate, for respondent No.2.

¶6

Ms. Veena Hooda, Advocate, for respondent No.3.

¶7

Mr. Shiva Khurmi, DAG, Haryana.

¶8

¶9

CRM-A-1540-2024

¶10

Counsel for the applicant 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 02.07.2024.

¶11

Counsel appearing for private respondent submits that the judgment of

¶12

acquittal is well reasoned.

¶13

Leave to appeal granted.

¶14

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.

¶19

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.

¶20

JYOTI 2026.02.18 10:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶21

CRM-A-1540-2024

¶22

-2-

¶23

The furnishing of the personal bonds shall be deemed acceptance of the all stipulations, terms, and conditions of this bail order.

¶24

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.

¶25

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

¶26

may download and use the downloaded copy for attesting bonds.

¶27

(ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE

¶28

(SUKHVINDER KAUR) JUDGE

¶29

17.02.2026 jyoti3

¶30

JYOTI 2026.02.18 10:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Nanho Devi v. Uday and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nanho Devi v. Uday and Others

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

Prem Lata Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Varinder Kumar Vs State of Punjab and Others

Bhupinder Singh Vs State of Punjab

Jaswant Singh Vs Buta Singh and Others

Ram Lubhaya Vs Daljit Singh and Others

Union Territory of Chandigarh Vs Pooja