Disposed¶13

Manjit Kaur v. Sajan and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC18 Apr 2026CRM-A/444/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Condonation of delay 108 days; leave to appeal against acquittal dated 01.08.2018; CRM-A-444-2019 (O&M); Manjit Kaur v. Sajan and Ors.; private respondent Nos. 2 to 4; appeal admitted; attendance bond within two months; personal bond Rs. 25,000; surety Rs. 25,000; Trial Court/Duty Magistrate; Registry to communicate order to trial Court; Anoop Chitkara; Sukhvinder Kaur; April 18, 2026.

What did the court decide?

Delay of 108 days in filing the leave to appeal condoned; leave to appeal granted and main appeal admitted; accused private respondents No. 2 to 4 directed to furnish a personal bond of Rs. 25,000/- and one surety of Rs. 25,000/- within two months, undertaking to appear before the Court in case the appeal is allowed. ¶13

Manjit Kaur Vs Sajan and Ors. — Punjab & Haryana HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶13

Issue for consideration

Whether the delay of 108 days in filing the leave to appeal should be condoned. +2 more

¶5

Court's answer

The delay of 108 days in filing the leave to appeal is condoned.

¶7

Ratio / Principle

Leave to appeal is granted to the applicant, and the Registry is to assign a number to the appeal.

¶13

Key takeaways

The main appeal is admitted.ratio¶17
On admission, the accused i.e. private respondents No. 2 to 4 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 the sureties the concerned Court must satisfy itself that, if the accused fails to appear, the surety is capable of producing them before the Court.ratio¶19
The Registry is to communicate the order to the trial Court without delay; in case of failure of respondent Nos.2 to 4 to furnish bond, the concerned Court shall proceed further in accordance with law.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal miscellaneous order (CRM-A-444-2019 (O&M), Manjit Kaur v. Sajan and Ors., decided April 18, 2026, by Anoop Chitkara and Sukhvinder Kaur, JJ.): (i) CRM-4583-2019 — delay of 108 days in filing the leave to appeal against the judgment of acquittal dated 01.08.2018 condoned; (ii) leave to appeal granted to the applicant against private respondent Nos. 2 to 4, counsel having urged that the acquittal judgment contains no appreciation of evidence and that there is sufficient evidence on record for their conviction; (iii) main appeal admitted; accused respondent Nos. 2 to 4 directed to execute attendance bonds within two months — personal bond of Rs. 25,000/- and one surety of Rs. 25,000/- to the satisfaction of the concerned Trial Court/Duty Magistrate, undertaking to appear before the Court in case the appeal is allowed; Registry to communicate the order to the trial Court, failing furnishing of bonds the concerned Court to proceed in accordance with law.

¶1

206 CRM-A-444-2019 (O&M) MANJIT KAUR VS SAJAN AND ORS.

¶2

Present: Ms. Kajal, Advocate (Legal Aid Counsel) for the applicant. Mr. Akshay Kumar, AAG, Punjab. Mr. S.S. Tiwana, Advocate for respondent Nos.2 to 4.

¶3

¶4

CRM-4583-2019

¶5

Present applica�on has been filed for condona�on of delay of 108 days.

¶6

For the reasons men�oned in the applica�on, the same is allowed.

¶7

Delay of 108 days in filing the leave to appeal is condoned.

¶8

CRM-4814-2019

¶9

Allowed as prayed for.

¶10

CRM-A-444-2019

¶11

Counsel for the applicant submits that she has a very good case on merit and there is sufficient evidence on record which is sufficient for convic�on of the private respondent Nos.2 to 4. There is no apprecia�on of evidence in judgment of acqui�al dated 01.08.2018.

¶12

Counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 4 opposes the prayer.

¶13

Leave to appeal granted.

¶14

Registry to assign number to appeal.

Main appeal

Heard.

Admi�ed.

The accused i.e. private respondents No. 2 to 4 to execute a bond for a�endance within two months, undertaking to appear in this Court, in case appeal is allowed.

¶19

Given above, the accused i.e. private respondents No. 2 to 4 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 sa�sfac�on of the concerned Trial Court/Duty Magistrate. Before accep�ng the sure�es, the concerned Court must sa�sfy that if the accused fails to appear in Court, then such surety is capable of producing them before the Court.

¶20

The furnishing of the personal bonds shall be deemed acceptance of the all s�pula�ons, terms, and condi�ons of this order.

¶21

Registry to communicate this order to the trial Court without any delay. In case of failure of respondent Nos.2 to 4 to furnish bond, the concerned Court shall proceed further in accordance with law.

¶22

There would be no need for a cer�fied copy of this order for furnishing bonds, and any Advocate for the accused can download this order along with case status from the

¶23

SANGEETA 2026.04.23 11:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶24

CRM-A-444-2019 (O&M)

¶25

-2-

¶26

official web page of this Court and a�est it to be a true copy. In case the a�es�ng officer wants to verify the authen�city, such an officer can also verify its authen�city and may download and use the downloaded copy for a�es�ng bonds.

¶27

(ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE

¶28

(SUKHVINDER KAUR)

¶29

April 18, 2026 Sangeeta

¶30

JUDGE

¶31

SANGEETA 2026.04.23 11:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Manjit Kaur v. Sajan and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manjit Kaur v. Sajan 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

Harpreet Singh Alias Happy Malaysia Vs State of Punjab

Baljeet Singh Vs State of Punjab

Usha Rani and Others Vs State of Haryana and Others

Sandeep Kumar Vs State of Ut Chandigarh

Kuldeep Singh Alias Babbu Vs State of Punjab and Another

Naresh Vs Sombir and Another