Punjab & Haryana High Court Annual Digest 2025: Part-II [Citations 251 - 482]
Citations: LiveLaw 2025 (PH) 251 - LiveLaw 2025 (PH) 482Punjab Police Rules | DM's Concurrence Not Required To Initiate Departmental Proceeding In Corruption Case Against Cops: High CourtTitle: VINOD KUMAR V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERSCitation: LiveLaw 2025 (PH) 251The Punjab & Haryana High Court has said that as per Punjab Police Rules (PPR) concurrence of the District Magistrate will...
Citations: LiveLaw 2025 (PH) 251 - LiveLaw 2025 (PH) 482
Title: VINOD KUMAR V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS
Citation: LiveLaw 2025 (PH) 251
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has said that as per Punjab Police Rules (PPR) concurrence of the District Magistrate will not be required to initiate disciplinary proceedings against police men in corruption cases.
Justice Jagmohan Bansal referring to PPR (Rule 16.40) said, "The authorities were supposed to initiate judicial prosecution or departmental proceedings depending on circumstances of each case. There is no requirement to seek concurrence of District Magistrate under Rule 16.40, thus, respondent has lawfully initiated departmental proceedings."
Title: Kirandeep Kaur and others v. Punjab State Power Corporation Limited and others
Citation: LiveLaw 2025 (PH) 252
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has said that if the second wife who was appointed as nominee by the husband will be entitled for compassionate appointment by the Government even if the first wife was not legally divorced.
In the present case the law officer of the concerned department had opined that first marriage of the deceased employee was dissolved by the Panchayat which had no legal sanctity, hence the second marriage would not be valid. Considering the opinion, the compassionate appointment to the second wife was declined.
Title: Kamalpreet Kaur and another v. State of Punjab & Ors
Citation: LiveLaw 2025 (PH) 253
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has remarked that ignorance of the Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) issued by the State Governments in pursuance of Kajal case has flooded the High Court with protection petitions by runaway couples.
Justice Rohit Kapoor noted that the Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) notified by the Government of Punjab, Haryana and the Union Territory of Chandiarh in pursuance to Kajal versus State of Haryana and others' have not been widely circulated and due to the ignorance of the same, the Court is flooded with litigation, “without first waiting for the representations to be decided by the concerned authorities within the time periods stipulated under the said SOPs and without availing the alternate remedy of filing appeals against any order as provided under the said SOPs.”
Selection Process Cannot Be Kept Open Indefinitely, Violates Article 14: Punjab & Haryana High Court
Title: NARESH KUMAR AND ANR. v. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS
Citation: LiveLaw 2025 (PH) 254
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has refused to interfere in 2014 advertisement for the post of Forest Guard observing that the selection process cannot be kept open indefinitely as the same would be violative of Article 14.
Justice Vinod S. Bhardwaj said, "The selection process cannot be kept open indefinitely. Keeping a selection process open-ended undermines the certainty and finality essential to public administration. An indefinite selection process also violates the principles of Article 14 of the Constitution as it allows unequal treatment of candidates and denies a level playing field to the future candidates."
Title: Gurdial Singh Kachure v. State of Punjab
Citation: LiveLaw 2025 (PH) 255
"Humanity has suffered enough environmental damage," observed the Punjab and Haryana High Court as it refused to grant pre-arrest bail to a man accused of illegal mining.
Chief Justice Sheel Nagu said, "that humanity has suffered enough environmental damage especially to the river as well as to the environment at large, the offence of illegal mining in rivers needs to be taken in all seriousness despite less punishment prescribed under the said Act and therefore, this Court deems it appropriate not to interfere in the matter."
Title: STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS v. SARWAN RAM AND OTHERS
Citation: LiveLaw 2025 (PH) 256
Employees cannot be denied the right to regularisation of service merely because they were engaged as daily wagers, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has held.
Justice Sudhir Singh and Justice Alok Jain said, "Once the appellants have not disputed the length of service of the respondents (writ petitioners), they cannot deny their legal right for being considered or entitled to regularization merely on the ground that they have been working as such on daily wages. Grant of any indulgence on such count would amount to allowing the appellants to take benefit of their dominion."
Title: Anuj Malik v. The Union of India and others
Citation: LiveLaw 2025 (PH) 257
The Punjab and Haryana High Court on Friday (June 20) refused to entertain a PIL seeking to restrain all online opinion trading platforms, mobile applications, websites, and digital mediums from advertising and/or facilitating betting and wagering activities, which was said to be in violation of the Public Gambling Act.
Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sumeet Goel said, "since there exists adequate statutory frameworks for redressal of the grievances articulated in the petition in hand, including The Haryana Prevention of Public Gambling Act, 2025, there arises no occasion for this Court to entertain the petition in hand under its extraordinary writ jurisdiction."
Title: Mehar Singh Rattu v. The Registrar of Punjab and Haryana High Court,
Citation: LiveLaw 2025 (PH) 258
The Punjab & Haryana High Court today (June 20) dismissed a former Additional Session Judge's plea challenging the full court's decision to compulsorily retire him in 2000 in "public interest."
Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sumeet Goel observed that "the phrase 'Public Interest' is inherently broad and falls within the exclusive domain of the competent authority, whose subjective satisfaction in this regard is not ordinarily subject to judicial review."
Title: Lakshay Chahal v. Haryana Staff Selection Commission and another
Citation: LiveLaw 2025 (PH) 259
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has issued a stern warning against the filing of meritless petitions that challenge the answers or evaluation methods of competitive examinations.
The development ensued while hearing a plea challenging the answer key issued by the Haryana Staff Selection Commission for the post of Junior Engineer (Civil).
Title: Vijay Bansal v. State of Haryana and others
Citation: LiveLaw 2025 (PH) 260
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has directed the Haryana Government to identify and notify the reserved forest areas in Morni Hills, latest by December 31.
A division bench of Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sumeet Goel critised the State for not taking any action in the matter, despite the process being initiated four decades ago through a notification dated December 18, 1987.
Title: Ramchander Shukla and another v. Union of India through the General Manager,
Citation: LiveLaw 2025 (PH) 261
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has granted a compensation of of Rs.4 lakh along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of accident till the date of actual realization or Rs.8 lakh “whichever is higher.“
Justice Pankaj Jain said, "once it stands proved that deceased-Gaurav Kumar was holding a valid Monthly Seasonal Ticket (MST) on the given date even though last digit was wrongly mentioned in the claim petition, the Tribunal ought not have held him to be a bona fide passenger. Resultantly, the finding is reversed. The deceased is held to be bona fide passenger, holding a valid MST on the date of accident."
Title: Kanwar Pahul Singh v. State of Punjab and others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 262
Observing that the Punjab Government authorities had already initiated steps, including penalties and rewards for informers reporting incidents of death by use of banned Chinese Dor, the Punjab & Haryana High Court has disposed of the second PIL filed to curb the menace.
A division bench of Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sumeet Goel noted, "it is obvious that steps have already been taken by the concerned authorities by prescribing penalty as well as announcing a reward upto Rs. 25,000/- for informer, informing about an incident of injury or death due to use of Chinese Dor."
Title: XXXX v. XXXXX
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 263
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has said that if the husband is not able to earn the maintenance amount, it is his duty to earn more to pay the maintenance amount to wife and children.
The Court dismissed the husband's plea challenging the Family Court's maintenance order of ₹24,700 for his wife and two minor children, on the ground that he had other liabilities which made him unable to afford it.
Title: Sunil v. State of Haryana and others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 264
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has said that the absence of an Expert Member as part of the Appellate Authority under the Haryana Air and Water Act does not occasion any disadvantage to the person aggrieved approaching the Authority after the National Green Tribunal (NGT) has come into force.
The Court dismissed the plea challenging the notification issued by the Haryana Government amending the Haryana (Prevention and Control of Water Pollution) Rules, 1978 (Water Act) and the Haryana Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Rules, 1983 (Air Act), providing a single-member Appellate Authority.
Title: Suhail v. State of Haryana
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 265
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has said that while adjudicating the bail pleas, in cases concerning cybercrimes and online fraud, necessitates a "meticulous evaluation of several pivotal factors" and warrants a heightened degree of judicial circumspection.
The Court made the observations while rejecting an accused's anticipatory bail plea after finding a prima facie case against him in cyber crime involving Rs.25 lakhs.
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has said that while adjudicating the bail pleas, in cases concerning cybercrimes and online fraud, necessitates a "meticulous evaluation of several pivotal factors" and warrants a heightened degree of judicial circumspection.
The Court made the observations while rejecting an accused's anticipatory bail plea after finding a prima facie case against him in cyber crime involving Rs.25 lakhs.
Title: Navpreet Singh and others v. State of Punjab
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 266
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has clarified that under Section 210(1)(c) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), a Magistrate is not obligated to record the statement of any witness or call the aggrieved party before taking cognizance of an offence or issuing process.
For context, Section 210(c) BNSS states that the Magistrate can take cognizance of offence upon information received from any person other than a police officer, or upon his own knowledge, that such offence has been committed.
Harpreet Singh @ Hira vs. State of Punjab
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 267
The Punjab & Haryana High Court refused to suspend sentence of a man convicted for possessing 500 grams of heroin who had undergone custody of over 3 years, observing that drug menace, especially involving manufactured drugs, must be dealt with the "utmost strictness".
Justice Sumeet Goel said, "It is with profound concern that this Court takes judicial notice of the escalating drug menace that plagues our society, posing an insidious threat to public order, health, and the very fabric of the nation. While the scourge of substance abuse has long been a challenge, the proliferation and consumption of manufactured drugs, particularly cocaine and heroin, have exacerbated this crisis to an alarming degree, demanding an unequivocally stringent response from all pillars of the State, not least the Judiciary."
Title: DALJIT SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 268
The Punjab & Haryana High Court transferred a cheating case to another district as the accused persons were lawyers in the same Court where the plea was filed, and lawyers at the district court refused to accept a brief against them.
Justice Harpreet Singh Brar said, "The inability of a litigant to secure effective legal assistance due to reluctance caused by undue influence or creation of a hostile environment by the opposite party, especially where the accused is an Advocate practicing in the same Court, compromises the foundational principles of fair trial."
Title: Rajesh Kumar Gaba v. Central Bureau of Investigation
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 269
In a "deeply troubling conspiracy" case involving a Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP) and revenue officers accused of conspiring to forge documents to garb a trust property, the Punjab & Haryana High Court refused to grant anticipatory bail to the accused persons.
The petitioner was accused of conspiring with the officials including DSP to forge documents and submit fabricated records related to the alleged dissolution of a society.
Title: KULWINDER KAUR v. STATE OF PUNJAB
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 270
The Punjab & Haryana High Court allowed a regular bail plea of a wife accused of abetting suicide of her husband, observing that marital discord alone are not sufficient to constitute the offence.
It was alleged that the husband used to remain upset with his wife because she was allegedly involved with another man.
Title: MUSHTAQ AHMED v. STATE OF HARYANA
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 271
The Punjab & Haryana High Court granted bail to a doctor arrested for allegedly mocking Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Home Minister Amit Shah in an AI generated video after Operation Sindoor.
Mushtaq Ahmed, an orthopedic by profession, was booked under Sections 152 (Acts endangering sovereignty unity and integrity of India), 197(1)(d) (Imputations, assertions prejudicial to national integration) of BNS of 2023.
Title: Resident Welfare Association, Taksila Heights Sector 37-C, Gurugram v. State of Haryana and others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 272
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has ruled that street dogs picked up for sterilisation cannot be impounded indefinitely and must be released back to the same location from where they were taken, in accordance with the Animal Birth Control Rules, 2023 (2023 Rules) .
Justice Kuldeep Tiwari said, "the local authorities, have the power to keep the street dogs in the impounding compound, however, it does not empower them, to keep the dogs for an indefinite period."
Apex Court's Judgements Apply Retrospectively Unless Expressly Stated: Punjab & Haryana High Court
Title: Raj Kumar v. Rajender
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 273
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that judgments delivered by the Supreme Court apply retrospectively unless explicitly stated otherwise.
The case pertains to application of the recent M/s Celestium Financial vs. A. Gnanasekaran, wherein the Apex Court held that a complainant in a cheque dishonour case for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, is a "victim" within the meaning of Section 2(wa) of the CrPC [Section 2(y) of BNSS], who can file an appeal against acquittal.
Title: Constable Simranjeet Singh and others v. State of Punjab
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 274
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has dismissed a plea filed by police officials accused in the Lawrence Bishnoi interview from jail case, challenging the order permitting polygraph test on them.
FIR was lodged against jail officials after the High Court took suo moto cognisance of the viral interview of the ganster Lawrence Bishnoi given while he was in custody at Police Station CIA Staff in Punjab's Kharar.
Title: Atharv Sharma, Minor through his Natural Guardian & Father Sh. Kuldeep Sharma v. State of Punjab and others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 275
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that no changes can be permitted in an admission form once it has been submitted, particularly in the context of competitive examinations. The Court underscored that it is necessary to ensure "expeditious" conclusion of the selection process.
The Court dismissed the plea challenging the Admission Policy wherein the changes in the Admission Form after submission of the application was not allowed.
Title: Jaspal Singh @ Jassa v. State of Punjab and others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 276
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has directed that all parole applications must be decided by jail authorities within a strict timeframe of four months and in case of violation of the direction the convicts may initiate contempt proceedings against the concerned officials.
The Court underscored the plight of convicts who await responses to their parole applications, facing undue delays even in emergency situations and directed to decide such pleas "expeditiously."
Title: Union of India and others v. Ex. Sep. B Rama Krishna and another
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 277
Reaffirming the rights of military personnel, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that a soldier who sustained injuries while collecting kerosene oil during 'Operation Rakshak' is entitled to a war injury pension.
"Operation Rakshak" was the Army's counter insurgency and counter terrorism operation in Jammu and Kashmir which began in 1990.
Title: Ram Vinesh Saw v. State of Punjab and others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 278
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has said that the protection of life and personal liberty is paramount, regardless of disputes over the age of the individuals involved.
The observation was made while dismissing a plea seeking action against the runaway couple for allegedly falsely stating in the protection plea that the girl was a major at the time of marriage.
Kuldeep Singh v. State of Punjab
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 279
Observing that "detaining an accused indefinitely due to the sheer nonchalance of the prosecution amounts to an abuse of process," the Punjab & Haryana High Court granted bail in an NDPS Act case involving a commercial quantity.
The accused was in custody for 2 years and 3 months in a case wherein 1.540 kgs of Tramadol—classified as 'commercial quantity' under the NDPS Act was recovered. Since the charges were framed in March 2023, only 03 out of 16 witnesses cited by the prosecution were examined.
Title: Chanchal Mehbub Singh v. State of Punjab and others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 280
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has clarified that if an employee knowingly receives salary or financial benefits beyond their legal entitlement, such excess amounts can rightfully be recovered by the employer.
The court emphasised that the landmark State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (2015) judgment—which placed restrictions on recoveries from employees in certain circumstances—does not offer protection in such cases of conscious overpayment.
Title: Makul @ Mohamad Makul v. State of Haryana
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 281
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that an accused person's silence during the course of an investigation cannot be equated with non-cooperation as right against self-incrimination is constitutionally protected.
The Court refused to reject anticipatory bail in NDPS Act case on the ground the accused failed to disclose certain facts during the investigation.
Title: RAVNEET KAUR v. BAR COUNCIL OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AND ANR
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 282
The Punjab & Haryana High Court refused to entertain a lawyer's plea seeking direction to the Bar Council for the States to provide her financial assistance, for her being an "un-established advocate."
The advocate had sought reimbursement of medical expenses, house rent allowance, personal security officer, travel expenses and an aid to her.
Title: BIREM SINGH v. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION AND ANOTHER
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 283
In a development related to the 2017 Gurugram school murder case, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has sought a response from the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and the Haryana Government on a plea filed by a police officer accused of tampering with evidence against the trial court's summoning order.
Justice Manjari Nehru Kaul issued notice to the Haryana Government and the CBI and adjourned to July 28 as the respondent counsels sought time to file a reply.
Title: PINKY ALIAS PINCKY & ANOTHER v. THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL FOR FORFEITED PROPERTY & OTHERS
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 284
The Punjab and Haryana High Court today held that an appeal under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act cannot be dismissed merely because the accused, lodged in jail, was unable to sign the petition and the Appellate Court ought to decide on merits.
Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sanjiv Berry said, "Considering the facts and circumstances, it is deemed appropriate that when the remedy of appeal is provided under Section 68 (O) of the NDPS Act and the petitioners have already filed the appeal before the designated forum, the Appellate Authority ought to have decided the appeal on merits, rather than throwing it away on account of the aforesaid defects especially when the removal of same was not within the control of the petitioner No.2, being lodged in Jail."
Title: Colonel Pushpendra Bath v UT Chandigarh & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 285
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has ordered the Central Bureau of Investigation to take over the probe into a Colonel's assault allegations against the Punjab Police.
This comes after the Court noted that the Special Investigation Team (SIT) entrusted to probe the case is "creating loopholes to give benefit of doubt to accused Police Officers".
Title: BHISHAM KINGER V/S STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 286
Raising concerns over the lack of essential medical equipment in district hospitals, the Punjab & Haryana High Court has asked States and UT Administration to submit a detailed affidavit outlining its policy on basic medical infrastructure.
Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sanjiv Berry said, "What is the medical policy of state as to basic medical infrastructure at every district hospital."
Title: Suresh Chand v. State of Punjab
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 287
The Punjab and Haryana High Court, while granting bail in a case under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, observed that it is highly improbable for a reasonable or prudent person to carry 2 kilograms of contraband openly in a transparent polythene bag.
The Accused was in custody for a period of over 2 years, 10 months and after framing of charges in May 2023 out of total 13 prosecution witnesses, only 05 witnesses were examined.
Title: Harjinder Singh alias Raj alias Rajinder Singh v. State of Punjab
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 288
Facilitating a fair opportunity for the accused to defend themselves can be a valid ground for granting bail, observed the Punjab and Haryana High Court while allowing bail in an attempt to murder case.
In the present case, the Court granted regular bail to an accused in attempt to murder case considering that all prosecution witnesses were examined except one witness, namely, the government doctor.
Title: Jitender Kumar v. State of Haryana and others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 289
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that a suspension order against a government employee continues to remain in effect until it is expressly revoked by the competent authority in accordance with Haryana Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules and Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Employees (Punishment and Appeal) Regulations, 2019.
Title: Paramjit Singh v. State of Punjab & Ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 290
In a stern rebuke to the Punjab Government, the High Court observed that the State had misused the judicial process by blatantly violating service rules and attempting to justify its actions through a lengthy affidavit. Taking strong exception to the conduct, the Court imposed a cost of ₹1 lakh on the government.
The Punjab Government authorities issued a chargesheet against a Public Works Department officer for an alleged incident that occurred 11 years prior to the date of superannuation. This is in violation of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, which bar the issuance of a chargesheet for the incident which is more that four years old after superannuation.
Title: RXXX v. State of Haryana
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 291
Suspecting child trafficking networks, "which now-a days are actively prevalent in the weaker sections of the society", the Punjab & Haryana High Court refused to grant regular bail to a woman accused of giving minor child to men for committing sexual assault.
Justice Namit Kumar noted, "there is sufficient and ample documentary evidence against the petitioner, indicating her involvement in luring and exploiting the minor victim girl and by facilitating and aiding the accused persons in perpetrating the heinous crime of rape upon her."
Title: Uggar Singh v. State of Punjab and others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 292
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has clarified that for the purpose of determining the stamp duty payable on a sale deed, it is the market value of the property at the time of execution of the sale deed—and not the agreement to sell—which is relevant.
Justice Anil Kshetarpal and Justice Rohit Kapoor said, "For the purpose of determining the amount of stamp duty on conveyance deed/ sale deed, the market rate prevailing at the time of execution of sale deed would be relevant and not when the parties entered into agreement to sell."
Title: RAKHI v. STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 293
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has flagged an instance of "judicial indiscipline" after an Additional Sessions Judge passed two distinct orders in the same case on the same day. Suggesting "thorough investigation", the Court has directed the Registrar General to put the file before the concerned Administrative judge.
The Additional Session Judge of Faridabad in a forgery case first orally pronounced an order granting interim-anticipatory bail, but later, passed an order on the same day granting absolute pre-arrest bail.
Gurmeet Ram Rahim Withdraws From P&H High Court Plea For Suspension Of Sentence In Rape Case
Title: Baba Gurmeet Singh @ Maharaj Gurmeet Singh @ Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh v. Central Bureau of Investigation
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 294
Dera Sacha Sauda chief Gurmeet Ram Rahim on Tuesday withdrew from the Punjab and Haryana High Court his application seeking suspension of sentence in the 2017 rape case.
The self-styled godman was convicted by the Special CBI Court, Panchkula in 2017 under Sections 376 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of twenty years for committing offences on two women followers.
Title: Jaswinder Singh alias Kala v. State of Punjab
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 295
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has explained the pre-requisite of granting bail under NDPS Act in case of commercial quantity wherein one of the conditions is that the accused is "not likely to commit any offence while on bail."
Section 37 states that bail should not be granted to an accused in case of commercial quantity unless the accused is able to satisfy twin conditions i.e. reasonable ground for believing that the accused is not guilty of such an offence and that the accused would not commit an offence or is not likely to commit an offence, if granted bail.
Title: BARKHA BANSAL VS. STATE OF U.T., CHANDIGARH & OTHERS
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 296
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has reiterated that the statement of a person summoned by the Directorate General of Goods and Services Tax Intelligence (DGGI) officials must be recorded during official working hours and in the presence of their counsel. The Court also observed that the summoned person has the right to request CCTV footage of the proceedings.
The developments comes in case of illegal detention of 30-hours, wherein a businessman was kept in in the zonal office overnight and subjected to prolonged interrogation.
Title: XXXX v. XXXX
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 297
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has dismissed a husband's plea seeking annulment of his marriage on the ground that his wife had allegedly concealed a pre-marital affair.
It was the husband's case that, prior to their marriage, during a separate meeting, he had categorically asked the wife whether she was in a relationship, to which she had denied. However, after their marriage, a video was posted on a social media platform allegedly showing her in a compromising position with another man.
Title: Surender v. State of Haryana and others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 298
Calling it a “classical case of power abuse,” the Punjab and Haryana High Court has imposed a cost of ₹50,000 on the Haryana Government for denying appointment to a candidate despite his acquittal in a criminal case. The Court noted that the candidate was compelled to approach the court in three separate rounds of litigation to assert his rightful claim.
The candidate was denied the appointment to the post of Constable. During verification process the authorities submitted that an FIR is pending.
Title: KANU SHARMA V/S HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AND OTHERS
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 299
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has dismissed a petition challenging the eligibility criterion requiring lawyers to have been engaged in 50 cases per year in last preceding 3 years, in order to appear for the Superior Judicial Services Examination in both states for the post of Additional District Judge.
The plea had challenged Rule11(bb) of the Haryana Superior Judicial Service Rules, 2007 and a similar rule in Punjab.
Title: XXXX v. XXX
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 300
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has said that the Family Court established under the Family Court Act do not have jurisdiction to decide the validity of Adoption Deed.
A bench of Justice Anil Kshetarpal and Justice Rohit Kapoor said, "Parliament in its wisdom, did not vest the Family Courts with the jurisdiction to adjudicate the matters pertaining to adoption, while conspicuously, it has inter-alia conferred jurisdiction qua matters specified under Sub- Section (1) Explanation (g) to such courts, which pertains to a suit or proceedings in relation to the guardianship of the person or the custody of, or access to any minor."
High Court Dismisses Plea Seeking CBI Probe Into Alleged Fake Encounter By Punjab Police
Title: Gurtej Singh Dhillon v. State of Punjab and others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 301
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has dismissed a plea as withdrawn by the petitioner, seeking a CBI probe into an alleged fake encounter carried out by the Punjab Police.
The police party was allegedly the same as the one accused of assaulting Col. Pushpinder Singh Bath and his son.
Title: SXXXX v. State of Punjab
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 302
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has quashed an FIR filed by former in-laws of a man citing it as an abuse of the legal process. The court observed that the dowry harassment case, lodged seven months after the couple's divorce and mutual settlement, lacked merit and appeared to be a misuse of the law.
Justice Jasgurpreet Singh Puri opined, "that lodging of the present FIR after about 7 months of the dissolution of marriage in USA will be nothing but pure abuse of process of law."
Title: Arshad v. State of Haryana and Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 303
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has upheld the dismissal of a police officer who absented himself for more than 300 days from duty, without leave to visit a tantrik (exorcist) for treatment of black magic.
The officer produced certain medical records to justify his absence; however, some of the documents pertained to treatment for black magic by a tantrik (exorcist).
Title: Jaswant and others v. State of Haryana and others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 304
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has dismissed a plea seeking ₹1 crore in compensation for the kin of the deceased in the 2010 Mirchpur Dalit killing case.
For context, In 2010, 254 families of the Balmiki community had to flee Haryana's Mirchpur as a result of the caste-based violence.
Title:Niyaz etc. v. State of Haryana
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 305
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has acquitted three men–convicted of murder by the trial court, citing the absence of a recovered dead body and insufficient proof of the crime.
A driver hired by three men for a journey to Punjab to Uttarakhand went missing with the car. Later the vehicle was recovered from Bihar, but the driver remained untraceable. During investigation, accused Niyaz, Imran and others confessed to having murdered Gian Chand and throwing his body into the Agra canal but the body was never recovered.
Title: XXX v. XXX
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 306
The Punjab & Haryana High Court refused to quash a rape case under POCSO Act on the basis of compromise between the victim and the accused.
The man was accused of raping a 13-year-old victim. Allegedly the victim was enticed away by the petitioner and she stayed with him and was recovered after four months by the police from the custody of the accused. The offences involved in the present case are Sections 363, 366-A, 376, 34 IPC and Sections 4 and 12 of POCSO Act.
Title: XXXXX v. XXXXX [CRR-1165-2025]
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 307
In a significant observation against stereotyping marginalized communities, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that it is arbitrary to assume that individuals living in slum areas are more likely to come into contact with criminals.
The Court made the observation while granting bail to a Child In Conflict With Law (CICL) in an NDPS Act case involving 39.7 kg Ganja- commercial quantity, wherein, out of the maximum sentence of three years, he had spent two years in custody.
Title: Suresh Kumar Sharma (deceased) through LRs v. State of Haryana and Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 308
In a significant interpretation of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that criminal proceedings unrelated to an employee's official duties cannot be used as a ground to withhold gratuity.
The deceased employee's family was denied gratuity because appeal against acquittal in a criminal case was pending before the Supreme Court. The Court directed authorities to release gratuity and regularise the family pension of a deceased employee within three months, along with 7.5 per cent annual interest, from the date of petition filing.
Title: Kangana Ranaut v. Mahinder Kaur
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 309
The Punjab & Haryana High Court refused to quash summoning order filed by actress and BJP MP Kangana Ranaut in defamation case filed over remarks made on 2021 farmers protest.
Ranaut had posted on Twitter that an elderly woman protester, Mahinder Kaur, was paid to participate in the agitation.
Title: Vikas Tomar @ Vikash Tomar v State of Haryana
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 310
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has refused to grant anticipatory bail to a man accused of replacing the national flag with a saffron flag atop a mosque.
The FIR was lodged under Sections 299, 3(5), 61(2) 196, 238 of the BNS and Section 2 of the Prevention of Insult to National Honours Act, 1971 at a Gurugram's police station.
Title: Col. Sukhwinder Singh Dhillon v. State of Punjab
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 311
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has strongly criticized a trial court for showing “unreasonable leniency” in a cyber fraud case, emphasizing that cases involving senior citizens deserve urgent and prioritized handling.
Title: CHIRAG KUMAR SARDANA v. STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 312
The Punjab & Haryana High Court underscored the delicate balance between justice and compassion by permitting a sportsman facing fraud allegations to travel abroad for a shooting camp.
Chirag Kumar Sardana is accused in a Fraud and Arms Act case. His passport was released by the Sessions Court only for a limited period, which prevented him from participating in international shooting camps at Europe and USA.
Title: Manish Kumar v. Directorate General, Goods & Service Tax Intelligence, Zonal Unit, Ludhiana
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 313
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has expressed concern over the sluggish pace of trials and the lack of convictions in Goods and Services Tax (GST) evasion cases and flagged abrupt arrests of accused by the authorities, "driven by some inexplicable urgency rather than necessity."
The Court granted bail in an alleged case involving defrauding the state exchequer of Rs. 107 crore, as input tax credit by generating fake invoices from fake firms.
No Power To Transfer Case From One High Court To Another: Punjab & Haryana High Court
Title: RAVNEET KAUR v. PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT, CHANDIGARH AND ANOTHER.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 314
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has held that it does not have power to transfer a case from one High Court to another.
Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sanjiv Berry said, "So far as the prayer of transferring the aforesaid three cases to any other High Court is concerned, the same cannot be granted since this Court is not vested with any such power; the petitioner for this purpose is free to approach the appropriate Forum."
Harcharan Singh vs. State of Punjab
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 315
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has clarified that an application for suspension of sentence filed along with criminal revision petition challenging conviction in a criminal case is maintainable before the High Court, even if the convict has not surrendered post-conviction.
Justice Sumeet Goel said, "A criminal revision petition against the judgments of conviction (as also an application for suspension of sentence, etc.) is maintainable before this High Court, without the petitioner-accused having surrendered or being in custody, in the absence of any rule in the extant Punjab and Haryana High Court Rules/Orders proscribing such maintainability."
Title: Payal Chaudhary v. KAP Sinha IAS and others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 316
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has imposed a cost of Rs. 50,000 on a litigant for engaging in forum shopping and filing a meritless contempt petition in a civil dispute
The development comes in a contempt plea alleging that the authorities have disobeyed Supreme Court's ruling in Rajeeb Kalita Vs. Union of India and others by disconnecting the water supply of the petitioner.
Denying Maternity Leave To Contractual Employee Violates Article 14: Punjab & Haryana High Court
Title: Harpreet Kaur v. State of Punjab and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 317
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has said that denying maternity leave to a contractual employee under the Maternity Benefit Act would amount to discrimination on grounds of nature of their employment and thereby violates Article 14 of the Constitution which guarantees equal protection of law.
Title: Sikander Singh v. ED
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 318
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that Section 223 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Suraksha Sanhita 2023, which grants the accused right to be heard before cognizance is taken in complaint cases, can apply even to cases instituted prior to July 1, 2024—the date when the BNSS came into force.
Title: AMIT RANA @ MEETA V/S STATE OF HARYANA
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 319
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that a downloaded copy of a bail or suspension of sentence order is sufficient for securing the release of an accused.
The court clarified when the certified copy of the order is not immediately sent by the Registry, the downloaded copy must be accepted by the Court before whom bail bond is furnished.
Title: RANJIT SINGH GILL V/S STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 320
The Punjab & Haryana High Court today refused to grant interim relief of stay on arrest to former Shiromani Akali Dal (SAD) member Ranjit Singh Gill.
It was alleged that Gill has been maliciously targeted by the Punjab Vigilance Bureau, solely on account of his political affiliation, immediately after he joined Bharatiya Janata Party (B.J.P.) on August 01.
Title: LAKHWINDER SINGH @ LAKHU VS STATE OF PUNJAB
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 321
The Punjab and Haryana High Court strongly criticised the gross misconduct and negligent attitude of lower-rank police officers in handling criminal investigations.
The development occurred during the hearing of a pre-arrest bail plea filed by a man accused of injuring a pregnant woman. The Court noted that although the incident occurred on June 16, the Investigation Officer moved an application seeking medical opinion on July 27 and the complainant's medical report had not yet been received.
Title: Sandeep Monga vs. State of Haryana and others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 322
The Punjab and Haryana High Court imposed a cost of ₹10,000 on an Investigating Officer (IO) who failed to follow Court's direction to remain present along with the case diary.
The Court was hearing a protection plea against Police Officers who allegedly withdrawn over Rs. 6.4 lakhs from petitioner's account and arrested him in a cyber crime case, without following the due process. During the last hearing the Court had summoned the IO of the case.
Title: Gurmeet Singh v. State of Punjab
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 323
In a significant ruling, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has clarified that a Magistrate or the Sessions Court, as the case may be, retains the competence to grant default bail to an accused, even when a regular bail application is pending before a Sessions Court or the High Court.
The development comes while hearing a regular bail plea wherein during the pendency of the application, the accused completed 3 months and default bail was granted by the Magistrate under Section 167(2) CrPC, which corresponds to Section 187(3) BNSS.
Title: Kapil Saini v. State of Haryana & Ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 324
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held the Haryana Staff Selection Commission (HSSC) prima facie guilty of contempt for failing to comply with its order directing the biometric verification of candidates appearing in competitive exams.
Taking serious note of the non-compliance, the Court has asked the Commission to recall the result declared without conducting the mandated verification fir the post of Junior Engineer (Civil)
'Child's Right To Know Parentage Overrides Parent's Right To Privacy': Punjab & Haryana High Court
Title: AXXX v. XXXX
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 325
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has upheld an order mandating a DNA test while emphasizing that a man's right to privacy can't override a child's right to know their biological parentage.
The observation was made while dismissing a petition that challenged a trial court's decision allowing a child's plea for the comparison of his DNA sample with that of the man he claims to be his father. However, the Court modified the order with modification of conducting of the test, but without any compel or assistance of the police.
Title: XXXX v. XXXX
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 326
In a strong rebuke to arbitrary administrative actions, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has imposed a cost of Rs.10,000 on an Inspector General of Prisons for rejecting a parole application without proper application of mind
Title: Vasdev Sinh v. State of Punjab and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 327
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has imposed a cost of ₹50,000 on the Punjab government for unjustly withholding the retiral benefits of a former employee based on an alleged incident that occurred 14 years prior to his retirement.
It is pertinent to note that the Punjab Civil Services Rules (applicable in this case), forbids initiating disciplinary proceedings after an employee has retired, if the matter pertains to an event that happened over four years before the date of initiating the proceedings.
Title: THE STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS v. XXX
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 328
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has upheld a compensation of ₹20,000 awarded to a woman for a failed sterilisation procedure, observing that she had not been informed about the possibility of failure, which ultimately led to the birth of her sixth child.
Justice Harpreet Kaur Jeewan said, “The consent of the respondent-plaintiff (woman) should have been obtained after giving information about the pros and cons of the said operation and this fact should have been clearly informed to the respondent-plaintiff that there are chances of failure of the said operation to the extent of 0.3%.”
Title: TV TODAY NETWORK LIMITED v. STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 329
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has refused to quash a defamation case filed against news channel Aaj Tak for allegedly linking a businessman Gopal Kumar Goyal, to the murder of a BJP leader and actor, Sonali Phogat in 2022.
The TV Today Network Limited had filed the plea challenging judicial magistrate's order directing the police to register a NCR and subsequently chargesheet filed on Goyal's complaint.
Title: FEDERATION OF SEED INDUSTRY OF INDIA v. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 330
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has quashed an order issued by the Punjab Government banning the use of hybrid seeds, holding that the state lacked the authority to impose such a prohibition.
However, the Court upheld the administrative order which imposed prohibition only upon the use of those kinds or varieties of hybrid paddy seeds in the State of Punjab which are non-notified varieties.
Title: Naresh v. State of Haryana
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 331
The Punjab and Haryana High Court rejected the bail plea of the prime accused Naresh, the main accused in the case concerning the alleged brutal lynching of a 16-year-old boy, Junaid Khan, in June 2017.
The accused Naresh is charged under Sections 302, 307, 323, 324 and 34 IPC and Section 145 Railway Act. The Court noted that two of the eye witnesses are yet to be examined.
Title: Dr. Amit Kumar Singal v. Central Bureau of Investigation
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 332
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has granted bail to an Indian Revenue Service (IRS) officer accused of demanding a bribe of ₹45 lakh in exchange for settling an income tax notice, along with a co-accused.
Justice Sumeet Goel noted, "The petitioner was arrested on 01.06.2025 whereinafter investigation in the case has been completed and charge-sheet/challan has been filed by the CBI on 30.07.2025. Total 19 prosecution witnesses have been cited and none has been examined till date. It is, thus, indubitable that the culmination of the trial will take its own time in view of the voluminous evidence and number of witnesses and thus, keeping the petitioner behind the bars for an indefinite period would not serve any substantial purpose once the investigation is complete."
Punjab & Haryana High Court Explains When Accused Can Directly Approach HC For Bail
Title: Dr. Amit Kumar Singal v. Central Bureau of Investigation
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 333
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has explained that an accused person can directly approach the High Court for bail only under "exceptional circumstances."
Justice Sumeet Goel elucidated, "There may be multitude of factors which may result in exceptional circumstance(s) enabling an accused to file, maintain and pursue his regular plea before the High Court straightaway. For instance; the incident/crime involved may have caused tangible circumstances, adverse to the petitioner-accused in approaching the Sessions Court; there may be perceptible difficulty for the petitioner-accused to approach the Sessions Court vis.-a-vis. the High Court; the plea may be involving complicated question(s) of law etc. Needless to say that these factors are merely illustrative in nature and not exhaustive."
Title: Bachan Kaur v. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. and others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 334
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has strongly criticized the conduct of Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd (UHBVN) authorities who equated disability sustained by an employee during service with “inefficiency,” calling their approach “terribly apathetic.”
The Court also pulled up officials for asking a widow to prove that her husband had sustained injuries while on duty nearly 40 years ago.
Title: KANWAR NARESH SINGH SODHI v. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 335
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has observed that failure of judicial officers and authorities to complete execution proceedings within six months—as mandated by the Supreme Court in Rahul S. Shah vs. Jinendra Kumar Gandhi—"shall be treated as contempt of the said judgment."
The Apex Court in Rahul S. Shah case while issuing directions to reduce delays in the execution proceedings, observed that an Executing Court must dispose of the Execution Proceedings within six months from the date of filing, which may be extended only by recording reasons in writing for such delay.
Title: Rahul Bundela @ Rahul v. State of Haryana and another
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 336
Granting bail to a man booked under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, the Punjab and Haryana High Court observed that since the accused himself belongs to a deprived Scheduled Caste community, it is questionable whether the provisions of the Act would be applicable in the given circumstances.
Justice Manisha Batra noted, "He was arrested after a gap of 425 days after registration of FIR. A perusal of the contents of FIR reveals that the allegation that the victim was called by the name of his caste have not been specifically attributed to him. Even otherwise, he is falling under Deprived Scheduled Caste category and as such, it is to be considered as to whether the provisions of SC/ST Act are applicable against him or not?."
Title: GURNAM SINGH ALIAS GAMA ALIAS GAMMA v. STATE OF PUNJAB
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 337
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that it is inappropriate for a medical officer to recommend that jail authorities allow an inmate to visit his ailing mother.
Justice Sanjay Vashisth said, "Petitioner himself has appended his mother's medical certificate dated 09.07.2025 issued by one Dr. Vikram Bhatia, and it is quite surprising that even the treating doctor himself has requested the jail authorities to allow the petitioner to be his mother's side during the time of her treatment."
Title: Tejinder Singh Bhathal and others v. State of Punjab and another
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 338
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that the Punjab State Power Corporation Limited (PSPCL), being a statutory body, is well within its rights to prescribe a cut-off date for the implementation of the 5th Pay Commission recommendations.
Justice Harpreet Singh Brar said, "The PSPCL being a statutory corporation is entitled to prescribe a cut-off date for implementation of the recommendations of the Fifth Pay Commission, in view of its financial health. The inability of the Corporation to extend benefits of enhanced pensionary benefits has been demonstrated by relying on cogent material and as such, is not arbitrary in nature."
Title: SONU ALIAS AMAR v. STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 339
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has observed that furlough is not a matter of right and can be denied in the rarest of rare cases.
Furlough and parole envisage a short-term temporary release from custody.
The difference is, while parole is granted for the prisoner to meet a specific exigency, furlough may be granted after a stipulated number of years have been served without any reason as per the relevant policy.
Title: Asif v. State of Haryana
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 340
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has observed that the cow holds a unique and special status in India, noting that its slaughter can have grave repercussions on public peace when it offends the deeply held beliefs of a significant population group.
It was alleged that the petitioner, Aasif, was transporting two cows to Rajasthan for slaughtering, in violation of the Haryana Gauvansh Sanrakshan and Gausamvardhan Act and the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act.
Title: AU SMALL FINANCE BANK v. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 341
Taking serious note of the mounting Non-Performing Assets (NPAs) and their adverse impact on the public exchequer, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has observed that District Magistrates cannot afford to delay on taking and handing possession of secured assets to the creditors under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act).
Title: XXXX v. XXXX
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 342
Reaffirming the seriousness and gravity of offences under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that such crimes strike against public morality.
The Court rejected the anticipatory bail of a man, accused of committing rape on a minor, an offence under Sections 137 (kidnapping), 96 (procuration of child), 3(5) (common intention), 64(1) (rape) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Section 4 (penetrative sexual assault) of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.
Title: Union of India and others v. Sher Singh and another
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 343
In a scathing judgment, the Punjab and Haryana High Court criticized the Army authorities for presenting a “sorry state of affairs” by "manipulating facts" to deny regularisation benefits to employees who had rendered over three decades of service.
The Union Government claimed that the post for which regularisation was sought was abolished at the time when the CAT has directed for the same, however the same was not found to be true by the Court.
Title: XXXX v. XXXX
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 344
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has set aside the conviction of a man in a rape case filed by a married woman who alleged sexual assault based on a false promise of marriage.
Justice Shalini Singh Nagpal said, “When a fully matured married woman, consents to sexual intercourse on a promise of marriage and continues indulging in such activity, it is merely an act of promiscuity, immorality and reckless disregard of the institution of marriage, not an act of inducement by misconception of fact. Section 90 of IPC cannot be applied in any such case to pardon the act of a woman and the criminal liability on another."
Title: ASI Dilbag Singh v. State of Union Territory, Chandigarh.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 345
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has granted pre-arrest bail to the personal security officer (PSO) of a sitting High Court judge, who allegedly attempted to open fire on a court officer during a heated altercation.
The Chief Court Officer, Dalvinder Singh, filed a complaint stating that during a heated argument, ASI Dilbagh Singh pulled out his gun to open fire, but the bullet was not shot as a result of a failed attempt.
Title: RANJIT SINGH GILL v. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 346
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has said that no blanket protection can be granted to an accused, requiring the investigating agency to serve prior notice before arrest, as the same will amount to curtailing its authority against a person alleged to have committed a non-bailable offence.
Title: TULSI RAM MISHRA v. S. RADHA CHAUHAN & ANR
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 347
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has imposed a cost of ₹50,000 on the Punjab Government for repeatedly seeking adjournments in a contempt petition.
The case pertains to a contempt petition filed by Tulsi Ram Mishra, alleging non-compliance with the order passed in September 2023, directing the state to forward all documents to the Centre for obtaining sanction to prosecute Punjab's former Chief Secretary Vijay Kumar Janjua, within a stipulated period. Janjua was allegedly caught red-handed while accepting illegal gratification of Rs. 2 lakh.
Title: Farida Praveen alias Shikha Gaur v. State of Haryana
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 348
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has granted bail to an undocumented female migrant accused in a fraud case, allowing her release on the condition of furnishing bail bond to maximum amount of ₹10,000 in the form of fixed deposit or on personal bond if she fails to arrange surety within 7 days.
It was alleged that Farida Praveen is an illegal migrant and prepared Aadhar Card, Voter Id and PAN Card on the basis of fake documents and also changed her name as Shikha Gaur. Hence, the FIR was registered under 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC and Section 14-A of the Foreigners Act 1946.
Title: Seema v. State of Punjab
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 349
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has recommended that investigating agencies share the gist of their findings against foreign nationals accused under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act involving significant drug quantity, with the Ministry of External Affairs.
The bench noted that, "the Court's dockets have ever-increasing cases under the NDPS Act, 1985, and these days, the trend of heroin being smuggled by the Indian Drugs Mafia from Pakistan's border is also more noticeable."
Title: Veerpal Kaur v. State of Punjab and others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 350
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has observed that a habeas corpus petition cannot serve as a substitute for custody proceedings under the guardianship laws like Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act. It clarified that High Court can intervene only when it is clear case of illegality.
Title: Jaswinder Singh v. Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd and others.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 351
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that an employee who acquires a disability during the course of service is entitled to be considered for promotion under the physically handicapped (PH) quota.
The petitioner's promotion under the PH category was denied by the State authority on the grounds that he had acquired the disability during his service and not at the time of appointment.
Title: The Union of India and others v. Ex Sep Sham Singh & another
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 352
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has criticized the Central Government for denying disability benefits to a soldier who sustained serious injuries during an explosion in the 1971 Indo-Pak war.
The Court rejected the Union Government's petition challenging Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT)'s order whereby the deceased soldier's wife was granted pensionary benefits.
Title: XXXXX v. XXXXX
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 353
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has said that the right to receive a legible medical prescription is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution. Emphasizing the critical role clear prescriptions play in safeguarding patient health and ensuring proper medical treatment, the Court directed the States to comply with an advisory whereby doctors were directed to write prescriptions in capital letters until a comprehensive system of digital prescriptions is implemented.
Title: Amrinder Singh & Ors v. IT Department & Ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 354
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has said that Enforcement Directorate (ED) can inspect documents filed before the Court with complaint lodged by the Income Tax ( I.T.) Department.
The complaint was filed by the I.T. Department against the petitioners under Section 277 of the Income Tax Act, read with the provisions of the IPC, wherein information in the form of master sheets originally received in Paris, France, by the authority of the Foreign Tax was placed on record.
Title: Kuldeep v. State of Haryana and others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 355
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that recruitment in public employment must remain sacrosanct, declaring that an appointment obtained on the basis of forged documents is “void ab initio”.
10 years after being appointed as Assistant Lineman, the authorities found that documents submitted were forged.
Title: Hardik Ahluwalia v. Gaurav Yadav, IPS and others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 356
Title: DIPESH JAIN v. STATE OF PUNJAB
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 357
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has held that seeking exemption from appearance on a few hearing dates during trial, by itself, does not justify cancellation of bail granted to an accused.
Justice Yashvir Singh Rathor said, "Merely, because petitioner had sought exemption on three dates out of six dates of hearing, it cannot be inferred that he had wilfully absented himself or was hampering the trial. The bail could have been cancelled only after recording a satisfaction that petitioner had wilfully absented with cogent reasons reflecting the necessity of such a stringent course. On this account, the impugned order is liable to be set aside."
Title: NAVPREET KAUR v. UOI & Ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 358
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that an inadvertent mistake in mentioning marital status or a spouse's name in a passport application does not, by itself, justify impounding or revoking the passport under Section 10(3)(b) of the Passports Act, 1967.
It clarified that such unintentional errors or lapses—whether by the applicant or someone filling the form on their behalf—do not amount to "mischief" under the law and cannot attract penalty of impounding of the passport.
Title: Hari Ram and others v State of Haryana & Ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 359
Observing that habitual delay and outright denial of rightful service benefits to employees, caused by bureaucratic red-tape and administrative indifference is one of the longstanding issues, the Punjab & Haryana High Court issued slew of guidelines for the bureaucrats.
Title: ONKAR SINGH @ OMKAR AND OTHERS v. MAHANT SITARAM DASS
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 360
The Punjab and Haryana High Court transferred a civil suit filed allegedly on the behest of an advocate to another court outside the jurisdiction, considering that the entire local Bar had gone on strike in support of the lawyer on whose behest the case was lodged.
Justice Archana Puri said, "Each case has to be decided on its own facts and circumstances. One distinctive circumstance, in any case, may lead to a different decision in the transfer application. But anyhow, underlying principle is that 'justice should not only be done, but it should also appear to have been done'. There is a categoric assertion of the applicants, about apprehension of exercise of influence, at the instance of Madhu Bala, member of the local Bar at Garhshankar. However, it may not be so, as the Courts are required to work, without influence of any person and give a decision, in accordance with law."
Title: DHARAM SINGH CHHOKER v. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT AND OTHERS
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 361
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has dismissed the petition filed by former Haryana MLA Dharam Singh Chokker, who had challenged his arrest by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) under the provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002.
Title: SUNIL MOHITE v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 362
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has observed that the dismissal of a police constable—who had over fifteen years of service—for sleeping during duty timing for two hours, an excessive punishment, equating it to "civil death."
Title: ANAND v. STATE OF HARYANA
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 363
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that an accused cannot be denied the right to pursue his studies abroad merely on the apprehension that he may flee from justice.
'Trivial Irritation' In Marriage Does Not Amount To Cruelty: Punjab & Haryana High Court
Title: XXX v. XXX
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 364
Dismissing a divorce plea, the Punjab & Haryana High Court held that ordinary marital disagreements, trivial irritations, or routine quarrels do not constitute "cruelty" within the meaning of Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
Justice Gurvinder Singh Gill and Justice Deepinder Singh Nalwa said, "Cruelty, within the meaning of Section 13 of the Act, must be of such a nature as to cause reasonable apprehension in the mind of the aggrieved spouse that it is harmful or injurious to live with each other. Mere trivial irritations, quarrels or normal wear and tear does not amount to cruelty. In the present case, no such conduct on the part of the respondent-husband has been established that would amount to mental or physical cruelty under the law."
Title: XXX v. State of Punjab
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 365
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has refused to grant pre-arrest bail to a man accused of abetting the suicide of a 16-year-and-11-month-old girl, observing that Mens Rea In abetment of Suicide case can be inferred from successive acts of accused, not just a single incIdent.
Title: Ashish Kumar v. State of Punjab
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 366
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has granted bail to a man accused under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) after he spent more than five years in custody. The Court observed that there was no material evidence placed on record to prove that the accused had advocated or incited terrorist acts.
Title: XXX v. XXX
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 367
The Punjab and Haryana High Court observed that when either of spouses have chosen to live "apart for over three decades without even a show of reconciliation or cohabitation, the very essence of marriage stands eroded."
Title: DR. SHIVA SHARMA v. HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AND ANOTHER
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 368
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has criticised its former judge, Justice Alok Singh, for making adverse remarks in the Annual Confidential Report (ACR) of a district judge that ultimately led to the latter's compulsory retirement.
Title: GURMEET SINGH v. STATE OF HARYANA
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 369
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has clarified that the authority to direct a re-investigation lies exclusively with superior courts such as the High Court itself. Magistrates, the court emphasized, do not possess the power to order a re-investigation.
Title: VINOD KUMAR V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 370
Emphasizing the need to honour ex-servicemen who retire at a young age after serving the nation, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has observed that it is the duty of employers not to create obstacles in their rehabilitation by denying them the opportunity of employment under the the ex- servicemen quota.
Title: Sumit Sharma and another v. State of Haryana
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 371
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that mandating a local surety as a condition for bail amounts to an assault on the fundamental rights of a person.
The court said that such a requirement discriminates against individuals from other parts of the country solely on the basis of their residence.
Title: Amritpal Singh v. Union Territory Chandigarh
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 372
The Punjab and Haryana High Court acquitted a man who was found in possession of a licensed firearm allowed in Punjab only, noting that the man had boarded a bus and fallen asleep, unintentionally crossing into Chandigarh, and held that there was no deliberate breach of the Arms Act.
Title: XXX v. XXXX
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 373
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that a consensual physical relationship between adults cannot be construed as rape merely because it did not culminate in marriage.
The Court quashed an FIR lodged against a man for allegedly committing rape, noting that he had entered into a consensual relationship with his fiancée, wherein after the roka ceremony the marriage could not take place due to differences between the two sides.
Title: Gulshan Babbar v. Lalit Goyal and another
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 374
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has refused to cancel the bail granted to the Managing Director of IREO Group, observing that a stranger to the case, who has not suffered any direct prejudice, has no legal standing to seek cancellation of bail.
Title: XXXXX v. XXXX
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 375
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that merely attempting to initiate an unwelcome conversation with a woman—though "annoying"—does not, by itself, constitute the criminal offence of outraging her modesty under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code.
Title: Kimti Lal @ Kimti Lal Bhagat v. State of Punjab and others
Citation:: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 376
The Punjab and Haryana High Court criticized the Punjab Police for an "inordinate and unjustified" 15-year delay in filing a cancellation report in a criminal case. Expressing serious concern over the lackadaisical approach of the investigating agency, the court imposed a cost of ₹1 lakh on the Punjab Government.
Title: RUSHIL JINDAL v. PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AND OTHERS
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 377
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has upheld the validity of the rule mandating a minimum of 50% aggregate marks for qualification in the Superior Judiciary Examination of both the states.
Title: XXX v XXX
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 378
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has directed the Haryana government to pay ₹4 lakh minimum interim compensation to a 14-year-old rape survivor but declined her plea to terminate 29 weeks pregnancy, citing the advise of medical board.
Title: HARBHAJAN SINGH AND OTHERS v. BHAKRA BEAS MANAGEMENT BOARD AND OTHERS
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 379
In a strong observation on the treatment of contractual workers, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has stated that labeling the service of daily wagers as merely 'casual' is "morally unjust." The Court emphasized that individuals who devote their entire working lives to public service should not be left without security or support in their twilight years.
Title: XXXXX v. XXXX
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 380
The Punjab and Haryana High Court, in a recent judgment, upheld the acquittal of an accused in a rape case, observing that the testimony of the prosecutrix suffered from serious infirmities and inconsistencies and the "defence has successfully raised a plausible case of false implication.”
Justice Manjari Nehru Kaul and Justice H.S. Grewal said, "we are satisfied that the prosecution has failed to prove the charge against accused-respondent No.2 ...and accused-respondent No.2 (in CRA-AD-38-2022) beyond reasonable doubt. The testimony of the prosecutrix suffers from serious infirmities, medical evidence does not connect the respondents to the offence, and the defence has successfully raised a plausible case of false implication.”
Title: M/s Coromandel International Limited v. Shri Ambica Sales Corporation
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 381
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has clarified that the right to bail of a convict under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI Act), cannot be denied by the appellate court merely due to non-payment of 20% of the compensation amount as stipulated under Section 148 of the Act.
Title: Jagdish Masih and another v. The State of Punjab and others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 382
Calling it a “sketchy petition” built on unverified claims, the Punjab & Haryana High Court has imposed a cost of Rs. 25,000 in a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) that alleged the Chairman of the Punjab State Minority Commission was only an “8th pass.”
Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sanjiv Berry frowned upon the “misuse of judicial process” under the garb of public interest.
Punjab Police Rules| State Can't Award Punishment Other Than Dismissal Where Police Officer Is Sentenced To Over 1 Month R.I : P&H High Court
Title: KRISHAN KUMAR @ KRISHAN LAL v. STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 383
In a detailed judgment interpreting the Punjab Police Rules (as applicable in Haryana) (PPR), the Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that the State government cannot impose any punishment other than dismissal from service in cases where a police officer has been sentenced to more than one month of rigorous imprisonment. The Court emphasized that the Rules leave no discretion with the disciplinary authority in such circumstances.
Title: MANPREET ALIAS MANI v. STATE OF PUNJAB
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 384
The Punjab and Haryana High Court while granting bail to a man booked after alleged drug overdose death of a youth, observed that pure drugs can often be more lethal than adulterated substances.
Perusing the pleadings, the Court found that the cause of death was drug overdose and at this stage it could not be ascertained whether the accused-petitioner forcibly administered an overdose of the drug to the deceased or if the deceased had taken it on his own.
Title: Ranjit Singh v. State of Punjab and others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 385
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has held that seeking undertakings from employees—wherein they are made to forgo their lawful service benefits, is not only exploitative but also unconstitutional.
The plea was filed challenging the order of the State authorities denying service benefits to a municipal worker, on the ground that he signed an undertaking forfeiting any claim to back wages following his reinstatement, after a tedious litigation.
Title: BIJENDER SINGH v. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 386
In a case that has raised questions about internal accountability in the police force, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has pulled up senior official (SP) over a viral video showing a Assistant Sub-Inspector (ASI) accepting a ₹1,000 bribe. Despite the incident, the constable received "best possible remarks" in his Annual Confidential Report (ACR) and no FIR was lodged.
Case Title: RXXXXX v. State of Haryana
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 387
In a stern move, the Punjab and Haryana High Court reprimanded lawyers for using artificial intelligence tools and Google on their mobile phones to respond to Court's queries during arguments.
Taking serious note of the conduct, the court seized the mobile device of one of the lawyers for a certain time, underscoring that such practices is "unacceptable".
Title: Sanjay Gordhanbhai Darji v. State of Haryana
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 388
In a significant observation, the Punjab and Haryana High Court held that the absence of a permanent residence cannot be a valid ground to deny bail to an accused, especially in an era where skyrocketing property prices and rental challenges make it difficult for many to secure stable housing. The Court granted bail to a man accused in fraud case under Sections 406, 420, 468, 120-B IPC.
Title: Veer Singh DSP v. State of Haryana and anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 389
Reiterating the mandatory nature of procedural safeguards, the Punjab and Haryana High Court quashed a trial court's order directing the filing of a challan against a police officer without following the due process laid down in the High Court Rules.
The Court observed that any action or criticism against a police officer must strictly comply with Chapter 1, Part H, Rule 6 of the High Court Rules, which requires forwarding a copy of the judgment to the District Magistrate, who in turn must send it to the Registrar of the High Court, along with a covering letter referencing the Home Secretary's Circular dated 15.04.1936. In the present case, the prescribed procedure was entirely bypassed, rendering the trial court's directive legally unsustainable.
Title: THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, FOOD CIVIL SUPPLIES AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS DEPARTMENT, PUNJAB AND ORS v. VARINDER KUMAR JAIN
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 390
Reaffirming that the law of limitation cannot be defeated under the guise of advancing substantial justice, the Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed the State's application seeking condonation of a 992-day delay in filing an appeal.
Justice Sudeepti Sharma said, "it is by now a well-settled principle that while Courts lean in favour of advancing substantial justice, they cannot do so by defeating the law of limitation or by causing serious prejudice to the opposite party. The law of limitation, being founded on public policy, admits of no exception in favour of repeated bureaucratic lapses or casual indifference. As the applicant–State has failed to make out sufficient cause for condonation, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the application is devoid of merit."
Title: Rinku Sharma v. State of Haryana
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 391
Emphasizing the seriousness of forging judicial documents, the Punjab and Haryana High Court denied pre-arrest bail to a woman accused of fabricating a court summons, stating that such acts "have serious ramifications on public confidence in judiciary and undermines public trust."
The petitioner was booked on the basis of disclosure statement of a co-accused who allegedly forged judicial summons purportedly issued by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar, bearing a fictitious UID number and directed appearance of a man in a case on 12.06.2025, a date falling during summer vacations. The forged summons also contained reference to payment of Rs.10 lakhs to one Mishi Sharma, allegedly as maintenance.
Title: Robert Masih v. State of Punjab
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 392
Observing that increasing smuggling of illicit drugs through the India-Pakistan border, particularly via drones, has become a growing concern for national security and youth, the Punjab & Haryana High Court refused to grant anticipatory bail under the NDPS Act.
The FIR was lodged under Section 21 of the NDPS Act alleging that an accused disclosed to the police that the consignment of the contraband was supplied from Pakistan through drone and one Robert Masih (petitioner) used to give them money for the same.
Title: Ashok Kumar v. PSPCL and another
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 393
The Punjab & Haryana High Court said that every delinquent employee has a legitimate right to have such proceedings concluded expeditiously. The Court noted that undue and unexplained delays cause mental agony, financial hardship, and social stigma, amounting to punishment even before any guilt is established.
Title: XXX v. XXX
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 394
The Punjab & Haryana High Court upheld the acquittal in a rape case observing that the statement of the alleged victim was not reliable and there was an unexplained delay of 2 months in registration of the FIR.
The Court noted that prosecutrix during cross examination also stated that the accused was holding the pistol in one hand and the mobile phone in other hand and caught hold of her from behind. "It is entirely impossible that a person would hold a pistol in one hand, mobile in another and caught hold her from behind and indulged in sexual act and also to film it. Her evasive replies further creates doubts in her testimony," the Court said.
Title: KAILASH CHANDER v. STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 395
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has said that the principle of equality enshrined in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution serves as the cornerstone of fair and just governance.
Court stated that in the context of service promotions, this principle mandates that no employee—whether from the reserved or general category—should be placed at a permanent advantage or disadvantage once parity in position is attained.
Title: SALINDER KUMAR AND ORS v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 396
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has directed the Chandigarh Administration to consider framing a rehabilitation policy for migrant labourers from Jammu & Kashmir who have been residing in government quarters for nearly four decades. Acknowledging that the petitioners have been living in the premises for approximately 37 years, the Court held that immediate eviction would be "unjust and harsh."
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 397
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has raised concerns over a growing trend in which even small amounts of money recovered from accused individuals are being labeled as "drug money" under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act.
The Court clarified that in such instances, the stringent bail conditions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act would not be applicable, and bail considerations should follow the standard legal framework applicable to regular offences.
Title: BALJEET KAUR V/S VIMAL PARKASH
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 398
In an unusual turn of events, a drunk man hit his wife's lawyer in court. Taking serious note of the incident, the Court granted interim custody of the couple's minor children to the mother and directed the Union Territory Administration to ensure her safety.
The man had also failed to comply with Court's previous direction to bring the minor children at mother's residence for visiting and spending time with their elder sister.
Title: RAM KUMAR v. STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 399
Observing that "justice, even if delayed, must be seen to repair what was broken not only in legality, but in principle," the Punjab & Haryana High Court held that the right to regularisation of service, once accrued, does not extinguish upon an employee's death.
Title: Vinay Sahotra v. The Punjab State Power Corporation Limited and others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 400
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that reservation benefits under the Backward Class (BC) category can only be claimed in the State of origin, not in the State of birth or subsequent residence.
Title: XXXX v. XXXX
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 401
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has observed that a mere allegation of harassment against the accused is not sufficient to establish the offence of abetment to suicide under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code.
Title: HARDEV SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 402
In a strong observation against the exploitation of long-serving personnel, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has directed the regularisation of a Home Guard who has been serving for nearly three decades.
Justice Jagmohan Bansal said, "A member who is working for part of the day or part of the month or part of the year and doing some other job for his livelihood may be called as volunteer, however, a man who is working entire day and without interruption for three decades cannot be called as volunteer."
Title: Khairati Lal v. State of Haryana and others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 403
Observing that "undue prolongation of proceedings often causes mental agony, financial hardship, and social stigma, even before the charges are proven, which is a punishment in itself," the Punjab & Haryana High Court issued set of guidelines for conducting departmental disciplinary proceedings by the Government authorities.
Title: LAKHAN SINGH v. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS [along with other petitions]
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 404
In a significant ruling, the High Court has quashed the Haryana Public Service Commission's advertisement for Assistant District Attorney (ADA) posts, which featured a general knowledge-based syllabus while excluding law as a core subject in screening test. The court observed that thousands of students pursue LLB degrees with the hope of securing public employment, and that legal knowledge is essential for posts like ADA.
Title: Ramji v. State of Punjab and others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 405
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has pulled up the Punjab state authorities for rejecting a life convict's plea for premature release without assigning any reasons. Terming the decision "non-speaking" and "cryptic", the Court imposed a cost of ₹25,000 on the state.
Justice Sumeet Goel noted, "the competent authority passed a cryptic order without due application of mind to the relevant material through an objective reasoning—only on 17.12.2024, while taking a year to pass such order. Furthermore, a perusal of impugned order dated 17.12.2024 reveals that the same has been passed by the authorities with a notion that the premature release of the petitioner from prison requires subjective satisfaction. The said inference on part of the State is liable to be rejected, being fallacious."
Title: HARSH RAWAL v. STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 406
Highlighting the prevailing scarcity of employment opportunities in the country, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has observed that denying a deserving candidate an appointment solely on the basis of a procedural lapse is unjust and unfair.
The Court directed the issuance of an appointment letter to a candidate who was unable to join within 30 days of his selection for the post of constable, as he was in judicial custody in connection with an FIR lodged due to a family rivalry. The FIR was later quashed by the High Court following a compromise between the parties.
Title: Pritpal Singh v. Punjab State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited (PUNSUP) and anr
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 407
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that the mere registration of an FIR against an employee does not amount to misconduct and, therefore, cannot be a valid ground to withhold annual increments
Justice Harpreet Singh Brar said, "The increment earned by an employee stands as an acknowledgment of services duly rendered during the preceding period. It is a vested right accruing over the course of performance, distinct from any assessment of future conduct. Observing the procedural safeguards, the mere registration of an FIR does not equate to misconduct or guilt but serves only as a marker of a future investigation whose outcome remains uncertain."
Title: XXXX v. XXX
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 408
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has refused to grant pre-arrest bail to accused mother-in-law of the deceased in an abetment to suicide case, observing that a woman's unnatural death shortly after marriage cannot be taken lightly. The deceased woman had been married in January 2025, and her sudden death within months raised serious concerns that warranted a thorough investigation, the Court noted.
Title: RAHUL YADAV VS STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 409
Observing that State's fanciful action erodes public faith, the Punjab & Haryana High Court observed that the Energy Minister of Haryana, while acting as Chairman of the District Grievance Committee (DGC), has no authority to direct the suspension of an officer of the Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited (UHBVN).
The Court held that disciplinary action against a UHBVN employee can only be taken by the Managing Director of the corporation, being the competent authority under the applicable service rules framed in terms of Article 309 of the Constitution of India.
Title: Manjit Singh alias Manna v. State of Punjab
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 410
In a significant step toward expediting trials under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has issued a comprehensive set of guidelines for Special Courts to ensure the timely disposal of cases involving commercial quantities of contraband.
The Court clarified that the directions shall come into force from January 01, 2026.
It also added that, "the accused cannot be permitted first to create artificial ground for delay and then take advantage of their own wrongdoing by invoking the constitutional protection under Article 21."
Title: Vijay Kumar v. State of Haryana and others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 411
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has cautioned against the tendency of complainants to over-implicate friends and relatives of the main accused in criminal cases, observing that such practices risk converting the criminal process into a tool of harassment rather than justice.
Title: Ashwini Kumar v. CBDT & Ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 412
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has directed the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) to extend the due date for filing Income Tax Returns (ITR) for assessees who are required to submit audit reports.
Justice Lisa Gill and Justice Meenakshi I. Mehta took note of the Gujarat High Court's decision, where it had extended the date till November 30.
Title: Court on its own motion v. State of Punjab through its Chief Secretary
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 413
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has directed the Punjab Government to consider paying interest on delayed salary payments to Anganwadi workers.
A bench of Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sanjiv Berry had taken suo motu cognizance over the alleged non-payment of honorarium to nearly 50,000 Anganwadi workers for six months.
However, the Chief Secretary submitted that arrears of 06 months' of honorarium withheld for the said Anganwadi workers have been cleared.
Title: Sukhpal Singh Khaira v. State of Punjab
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 414
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has dismissed Punjab Congress MLA Sukhpal Singh Khaira's plea seeking to set aside an order of the Special Court refusing to defer trial in a money laundering case registered against him.
Khaira argued that since the trial in the NDPS case remained stayed in view of State of Punjab's statement before the Supreme Court, continuation of the PMLA trial would be contrary to law.
Title: Chattan Singh v. The Deputy Commissioner-cum-Presiding Officer, Maintenance Appellate Tribunal, Mohali, District Mohali and others
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has observed that the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (the Act) cannot be used to settle family property disputes by seeking maintenance or cancellation of property transfers.
Justice Kuldeep Tiwari dismissed a petition filed by a senior citizen under Section 23 of the Act, seeking cancellation of a transfer deed executed in favour of his grandchildren.
Title: Pankaj Kumar v. State of Haryana and others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 416
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has strongly criticized the Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited (UHBVNL) for exhibiting “disregard to human dignity” and “administrative apathy” in denying a legitimate ex gratia appointment to the dependent of a disabled employee for over two decades.
Justice Harpreet Brar said, "The case at hand is a classic example of the administrative apathy that has resulted in denial of livelihood to a deserving candidate. The petitioner was eligible for ex-gratia appointment in terms of a duly enforced government policy. However, the manner of decision of his claim has not only caused the petitioner a loss of livelihood but also considerable mental harassment due to denial of a legitimate expectation."
Title: Gurpreet Singh v. State of Punjab and others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 417
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that a compromise between the parties cannot extinguish criminal liability in cases of cheating involving public trust, observing that such offences transcend the realm of private disputes and strike at the integrity of public institutions.
The petitioner was accused for defrauding the complainant of ₹4.5 lakh by promising government employment.
Title: Amit Ahalawat v. State of Haryana and others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 418
The Punjab and Haryana High Court said that recruitment processes for government posts must evolve beyond rote learning and mechanical recall, emphasizing that evaluating only bookish knowledge fails to capture the skills required for effective administration and public service.
The Court held that it is justifiable to ask General awareness, GK, mental ability etc. in the screening test for the post of Assistant Assistant Environmental Engineer exam conducted by Haryana Public Service Commission (HPSC).
UAPA | Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Bail To Man Accused Of Hoisting Khalistani Flag
Title: Jagwinder Singh @ Jagga v. National Investigating Agency
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 419
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has granted bail to a man who had been in custody for nearly five years under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) for allegedly hoisting a Khalistani flag.
Justice Deepak Sibal ans Justice Lapita Banerji said, “The allegation against the appellant was that he had watched video of Gurpatwant Singh Pannu and indoctrinated his cousin Inderjit Singh [main accused] to support the formation of separate State of 'KHALISTAN' and aided/abetted hoisting of 'KHALISTAN' flag on the top floor of D.C's office. Apart from one phone call on the day previous to the commission of offence... nothing else has been brought on record to link the appellant with A-1 (Inderjit Singh)."
Title: ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd. versus Priya PS and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 420
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has held that family pension received by dependents after the death of a deceased in a motor accident cannot be treated as part of the deceased's income for determining loss of dependency, though it also cannot be deducted from the compensation payable to the claimants.
Justice Parmod Goyal said, "The family pension received by deceased has got no relation with the accident and resultant death on account of accident and therefore it was rightly held not liable to be deducted for the compensation awarded on account of loss of dependency. However, similarly the family pension cannot be treated as income of deceased for determining loss of dependency."
Case Title: Bhupinder Singh Hooda v. Central Bureau of Investigation
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 421
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has dismissed a plea filed by former Haryana Chief Minister Bhupinder Singh Hooda seeking to halt trial proceedings in the Manesar land scam case, observing that the stay granted by the Supreme Court to some co-accused cannot be a ground to stall the trial against him.
Justice Tribhuvan Dahiya said, "In case the SLPs against the co-accused are to be finally dismissed, they can be charged separately and evidence can then be taken against them; and in case their SLPs are to be allowed, it will have consequence only for the offence of conspiracy so far as the petitioner is concerned. Accordingly, framing of charge and proceeding with the trial will not cause any prejudice to the petitioner.”
Title: Mandeep Kaur and Another v. State of Punjab and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 422
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has observed that if protection is not granted immediately upon a citizen's request—particularly in cases involving marriage—the authorities concerned shall be held liable for any untoward incident resulting from their inaction.
The Court was hearing a petition filed by a young couple seeking protection of life and liberty from the woman's family, who were allegedly threatening them for having married against their wishes.
Title: Inderjeet Suhag and another v. State of Haryana and others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 423
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has said that offences committed against public servants in the discharge of their official duties cannot be treated as mere private disputes, in such cases FIR cannot be quashed on the basis of compromise between the parties.
While dismissing the plea for quashing FIR filed by the accused in view of compromise with the complainant-Public Servant, the Court directed the Administrative Secretary of the Department [wherein the FIR-complainant-victims were serving at the time of alleged commission of offence(s)] to look into the matter regarding settlement entered into by them sans requisite administrative permission & take appropriate action.
Title: XXXXX VS STATE OF U.T. CHANDIGARH [CRM-48642-2024 in CRA-S-3761-2024]
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 424
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has suspended the sentence of a school teacher convicted for sexual harassment under Section 354-A IPC and Sections 10 & 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012, during the pendency of his appeal.
Justice Namit Kumar noted, "any child who would have experienced such an incident must have been mentally traumatised for a while, whereas, on 03.11.2022 the very next day of the alleged incident, the victim had attended the P.T.M. along with her parents and she also clicked some photographs in the school and uploaded the same on social media through her Instagram account with the caption "School Mein Maje"."
Title: Nishi and Another v. Panjab University and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 425
Coming down heavily on the prolonged practice of engaging employees on contractual terms, the Punjab & Haryana High Court has held that the State cannot make contractual appointments for infinity on minimum salary, nor can it take advantage of mass unemployment to exploit its citizens.
The observation was made while directing the Panjab University to regularise contractual Assistant Professors working on ad-hoc basis since 2012.
Title: NAVNEET KUMAR V/S UNION TERRITORY OF THE CHANDIGARH AND OTHERS
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 426
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has dismissed the petition seeking transfer of the investigation into the suicide of IPS officer Y Puran Kumar to an independent agency, observing that there was no ground to doubt the ongoing probe by the Chandigarh Police.
Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sanjiv Berry noted, “ The learned Senior counsel representing UT Chandigarh Amit Jhanji has apprised that 14 persons are arrayed as accused in the said FIR and and pursuant to the lodging of aforesaid FIR, statements of 22 witnesses have been recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. [equivalent to Section 180 of BNSS] and certain items seized, have been sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Chandigarh and Phillaur, District Jalandhar, but reports thereof are awaited. Learned senior counsel has also informed that on 10.10.2025, a Special Investigation Team (SIT) headed by the Inspector General of Police, UT Chandigarh has been constituted, which is looking after the investigation.”
Title: Anuj Agarwal v. Serious Fraud Investigation Officer
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 427
The Punjab & Haryana High Court recently granted anticipatory bail to a group of Chartered Accountants accused by the Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO) in connection with the alleged ₹1,596.94 crore fraud by the SRS Group of Companies. The Court, by a common order, disposed of multiple pending bail applications of eight Chartered Accountants by classifying them into two categories — Statutory Auditors and Internal Auditors.
Title: Amit Tanwar v. State of Haryana
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 428
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has observed that keeping seized vehicles in police custody for years serves no useful purpose and results in depreciation, decay, and environmental harm. The Court underscored that modern technology allows for digital documentation — including video and photographs — to serve as sufficient evidence, thereby enabling timely release of vehicles to their rightful owners.
Title: Badri Mandal & others v. State of Haryana and another
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 429
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has observed that cyber fraud constitutes a systemic offence against public trust and the digital economy, and therefore, such cases cannot be quashed merely on the basis of a compromise or settlement between the complainant and the accused.
Justice Sumeet Goel said, "The contemporary felony of cyber fraud presents a transgression sui generis that mandates its categorical exclusion from the judicial indulgence for quashing of criminal proceedings solely on the basis of a compromise/settlement having been arrived at between the complainant/victim and the accused. Digital economy is the unassailable locus of modern commerce, sustained entirely by the bedrock of public trust."
P&H High Court Dismisses SAD Candidate's Plea For 'Blanket' Anticipatory Bail
Title: Kanchanpreet Kaur v. State of Punjab and others
Citation:2025 LiveLaw (PH) 430
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has dismissed a petition filed by Kanchanpreet Kaur, daughter of Sukhwinder Kaur Randhawa, the Shiromani Akali Dal (SAD) candidate for the upcoming Tarn Taran Assembly by-election, seeking anticipatory or blanket bail on the apprehension that she may be implicated in false criminal cases due to political vendetta.
Justice Rupinderjit Chahal said, "directing the respondent to serve seven days prior notice before arrest would virtually amount to granting a blanket protection from arrest in guise of anticipatory bail which is contrary to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as discussed above."
Title: Sukhchain Masih @ Lalla v. State of Punjab
Citation:2025 LiveLaw (PH) 431
Reasserting that currency issued by the sovereign cannot be labelled “drug money” without substantive proof, the Punjab & Haryana High Court has held that the burden squarely rests on the investigating agency to establish a specific and demonstrable nexus between seized cash and illicit drug trafficking before invoking Section 27A or the forfeiture provisions of the NDPS Act.
Section 27A NDPS Act is a provision that penalizes individuals involved in financing illicit drug trafficking or harboring offenders.
Citation: LiveLaw (PH) 432
The Punjab and Haryana High Court today refused to entertain a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking to change the title of Farhan Akhtar's movie from '120 Veer Bahadur' to '120 Veer Aheer', noting that a review of the film's certification is still pending and that the Union Government has assured it will decide the matter within two days, as the film is scheduled for release this Friday (November 21).
Sanyukt Akhir Regiment Morcha, had moved the Court seeking direction the change of name of movie from “120 BAHADUR” to “120 VEER AHIR”, to quash and recall the certification granted to the on the ground of distortion of historical facts relating to the Battle of Rezang La (1962).
Title: Amit Kumar v. State of Haryana and others
Citation: LiveLaw (PH) 433
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has directed the Director General of Police, Haryana, to reconsider the candidature of a Constable aspirant whose appointment was rejected on the ground that he had been facing trial in a road accident case at the time of antecedent verification.
Justice Jagmohan Bansal noted as per Punjab Police Rule (as applicable in Haryana), "where charges have been framed against a candidate for offence(s) involving moral turpitude or which is punishable for imprisonment of three years of more, he shall not be considered for appointment. The petitioner was implicated in a car accident. Offence of vehicular accident does not involve moral turpitude. He was charged for committing offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 IPC and 181 of MV Act. None of the aforesaid offence(s) is/are punishable with imprisonment of three years or more."
Title: Sajjan Kumar Goyal v. State of Haryana and others
Citation: LiveLaw (PH) 434
In a significant ruling safeguarding the rights of retired government employees, the Punjab & Haryana High Court has directed the Reserve Bank of India to issue instructions to all agency banks stipulating that no recovery of excess pension may be made without the pensioner's knowledge, consent or prior notice, and that any such recovery must strictly conform to the governing service rules.
The direction came while allowing a writ petition filed by a retired Executive Officer of the Municipal Council, Kaithal, from whose pension account a sum of ₹6,63,688 was unilaterally debited by Punjab National Bank on the ground of “excess pension”, without any notice or opportunity of hearing
Title: Harpreet Singh Dua and another v. Panjab University and others.
Citation: LiveLaw (PH) 435
The Punjab & Haryana High Court, while hearing a plea seeking direction to conduct elections for the Senate of Panjab University, a matter currently subject to student protests, underscored that the "prime focus of all students should remain the acquisition of knowledge. Academic activities cannot be compromised or sacrificed at the altar of electoral or political aspirations."
Title: SXXXX v. State of Haryana [CRM-M-42307-2021]
Citation: LiveLaw (PH) 436
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has quashed the FIR lodged filed for committing rape on pretext of marriage, observing that "it is inconceivable that a legally married woman could be induced into a sexual relationship on the promise of marriage."
Title: Shyam Sunder Strips & Ors. vs. UOI & Ors.
Citation: LiveLaw (PH) 437
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has quashed orders that disallowed debit from Electronic Credit Ledgers of taxpayers in excess of the Input Tax Credit (ITC) available at the time of passing of the said order.
Title: Bhajan Singh v. State of Punjab
Citation: LiveLaw (PH) 438
While granting acquittal in Death by negligence case, the Punjab & Haryana High Court said that the duty of care on the road applies equally to all motorists and that liability cannot be fastened on a bus driver in every case where an element of contributory negligence on the part of the other driver is apparent.
The Court set-aside the conviction under Sections 304-A, 279, 427 IPC, wherein the appellant was convicted for rigorous imprisonment for 1 year.
Title: Laxmi Devi v. State of Haryana and others
Citation: LiveLaw (PH) 439
Observing that the five-decades old case "reveals a saga of administrative apathy and a persistent struggle for rightful dues", the Punjab & Haryana High Court directed the concerned Principal Secretary of Haryana, to personally examine the veracity of the widow's pensionary benefit claims within two months and ensure that all lawful due to her are released “forthwith”.
Title: Satnam Singh v. State of Punjab and another
Citation: LiveLaw (PH) 440
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has cautioned against the “probable erosion of judicial integrity” where criminal proceedings involving serious offences—particularly those under Section 304-A IPC/Section 106 BNS (Causing death by negligence)—are sought to be quashed solely on the basis of compromise between the accused and the victim's family.
Title: Lakshay Jain v. State of Punjab and another
Citation: LiveLaw (PH) 441
The Punjab & Haryana High Court granted probation to a young man convicted for causing death by negligence in a road accident, emphasizing the rehabilitative and reformative objectives of sentencing over purely punitive measures.
Title: Amritpal Singh v. UOI & Ors.
Citation: LiveLaw (PH) 442
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has directed Punjab Government to decide NSA detainee MP Amritpal Singh's application seeking parole to attend Parliament winter session, “within 7 days” preferably before the session starts.
Amritpal has been accused of propagating "Khalistani separatism" and posing a threat to the security of the State and maintenance of public order.
Title: DR MANOJ v. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS
Citation: LiveLaw (PH) 443
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has come down heavily on the Haryana Government for initiating disciplinary action and withholding No Objection Certificate (NOC) of a government doctor merely because he did not rise from his seat when a Member of the Legislative Assembly (MLA) visited the hospital during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Title: Sarafuddin Ayub Sheikh v. State of Haryana
Citation: LiveLaw (PH) 444
While rejecting bail in a cyber fraud case, the Punjab & Haryana High Court has held that cyber fraud constitutes a sui generis transgression, demanding categorical exclusion from judicial indulgence in bail matters, given its capacity to erode public trust in the digital economy and destabilize financial ecosystems.
Title: BHAGWANT MANN AND ANOTHER v. U.T. CHANDIGARH
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 445
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has quashed an FIR and all consequential proceedings against several Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leaders including Punjab CM Bhagwant Mann arising from a 2020 protest in Chandigarh during Congress government, holding that no prima facie case existed against them and that the alleged offences under the IPC were not made out.
Title: RAMANDEEP SINGH BAINS AND OTHERS v. BHAKRA BEAS MANAGEMENT BOARD AND OTHERS
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 446
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has disposed of a writ petition challenging the Bhakra Beas Management Board's (BBMB) July 2025 communication inviting applications for the post of Secretary, after the respondents informed the Court that the impugned orders had been withdrawn.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 447
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has come down heavily on the Haryana Shahari Vikas Pradhikaran (HSVP) for arbitrarily cancelling plot allotments made through an e-auction and refunding the entire consideration without notice, reason or any speaking order. Terming the action “unjustified, arbitrary and a clear example of mala fide”, the Court has directed restoration of allotments and imposed costs of ₹1 lakh in each petition on HSVP.
Title: National Insurance Company Limited v. Satbir and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 448
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has dismissed an appeal filed by an Insurance Company challenging a 2003 award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT), Jind, which had fastened liability upon the insurer without granting recovery rights.
The insurer sought recovery rights on the ground that the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess a valid driving licence on the date of the accident.
Title: Sandeep Singh Attal @ Sandvi v. State of Punjab
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 449
In a significant order addressing allegations of hate speech and communal provocation, the Punjab & Haryana High Court has dismissed a petition seeking anticipatory bail of a journalist accused of spreading inflammatory statements against Purvanchal Community and migrant labours.
GAGANDEEP SINGH AND OTHERS VS STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 450
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has stayed the operation of directions issued by the Punjab State & Chandigarh (UT) Human Rights Commission, observing that the Commission had “travelled beyond its brief” by ordering executive authorities to take coercive action rather than issuing mere recommendations as mandated under the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993.
Title: Mohan Lal v. The State of Punjab and others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 451
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has directed the State Government to pay ₹5 lakh as lump-sum compensation to a former Earth Work Mistri of the Anandpur Sahib Hydel Project (ASHP), whose plea for absorption in government service remained unaddressed for decades despite explicit judicial directions
Punjab & Haryana High Court Dismisses Former Cabinet Minister Bikram Singh Majithia's Bail Plea
Title: Bikram Singh Majithia v. State of Punjab
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 452
The Punjab & Haryana High Court dismissed the regular bail petition filed by a former Cabinet Minister of Punjab in a corruption case involving alleged accumulation of over ₹540 crore in disproportionate assets, holding that the accusations reveal a deep-rooted economic conspiracy, extensive money-laundering channels, and ongoing investigation with significant international financial trails.
Title: XXX v. XXX
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 453
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has held a husband guilty of civil contempt for contracting a second marriage during the pendency of his wife's appeal against the divorce decree—an act done despite the High Court's stay order and in violation of Section 15 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
Title: HARCHARAN SINGH BHULLAR V/S UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 454
The Punjab and Haryana High Court on Thursday declined to grant interim release to DIG Harcharan Singh Bhullar in the corruption case registered by the CBI, observing that the relief sought was virtually identical to the final adjudication of the matter.
Title: NB INTERNATIONAL v. COMMISSIONER, CENTRAL GOODS AND SERVICES TAX AND OTHERS
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 455
Holding that the tax authorities cannot indefinitely freeze Input Tax Credit (ITC) by repeatedly invoking the same allegations, the Punjab & Haryana High Court has ruled that blocking ITC beyond the statutory one-year period—without any fresh material or further proceedings—is “clearly unsustainable.”
Title: Dr. Janvi v. State of Punjab
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 456
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has dismissed a writ petition challenging the Punjab Government's circular, which mandates that Punjab Civil Medical Services (PCMS) doctors must complete at least one year of service before being permitted to pursue postgraduate (PG) medical courses under the non-incentive category.
Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Rohit Kapoor said, "Though we find substance in the contention of the petitioner that ultimate oblect is to equip the department with better doctors but] considerations like rendering service to the department for some period cannot be said to be wholly without an purpose or irrational. It otherwise remains in the realm of policy of the State to require a minimum length of service and as we find that such policy cannot be termed to be irrational, we would not be justified in interfering with it only because a different view could be taken in the matter."
Title: kamlesh Rani v. Sanjeev
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 457
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has imposed exemplary costs of ₹2,00,000 on a tenant for wilful and deliberate disobedience of its earlier order directing him to hand over vacant possession of the disputed property to the landlord by 30 April 2023.
Despite having furnished a categorical undertaking before the Court, the tenant vacated the premises only on 5 September 2025, nearly two years after the deadline.
Title: GURSEWAK SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 458
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has declined to interfere in a writ petition filed by a candidate for the Zila Parishad and Panchayat Samiti elections in Punjab, challenging the Halka Patwari's refusal to verify the No Objection Certificate (NOC) required for filing his nomination.
Article 243-O of the Constitution bars courts from interfering in Panchayat (local village government) elections and electoral processes, meaning disputes about delimitation (constituency drawing) or the results themselves must follow specific election petitions to designated authorities, not High Courts or the Supreme Court directly, safeguarding the autonomy of grassroots democracy.
Title: GURMEJ SINGH v. UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 459
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has dismissed two appeals filed by accused persons challenging the rejection of their second bail applications, in a major narco-terror case involving cross-border smuggling of heroin, weapons, explosives and alleged terror-funding linked with Pakistan-based handlers, including designated terrorist Lakhbir Singh Rode.
A bench of Justice Gurvinder Singh Gill and Justice Ramesh Kumari said, "Facts of this case it reveals that money received from sale of narcotic substance smuggled from across the border is used for terror funding and the accused-appellants are actively involved in India for terror funding at the behest of their masters who are working from across the border i.e. in Pakistan. The consignments of arms and ammunition, currency notes and narcotic substances i.e. Heroine is delivered from across the border."
Title: Daljit Singh Grewal alias Bhola and others v. State of Punjab and others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 460
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has declined to quash 2015 FIR, registered against former MLA Simarjeet Singh Bains and others, arising out of a protest related to the 2015 Bargari sacrilege incident.
Section 195 CrPC prevents courts from taking cognizance for specific offenses, primarily those against public justice (like perjury, forgery in court) or contempt of lawful authority (like obstructing public servants), unless a complaint is filed by the public servant or court involved, to prevent frivolous private prosecutions and maintain judicial integrity.
Title: Gurcharan Dass and others v. State of Haryana and others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 461
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has held that the Haryana Police Housing Corporation cannot deny medical reimbursement to its retired employees on the ground of financial constraints, quashing two orders that had denied the benefit to former staff members. The Court reiterated that once medical reimbursement is part of the service conditions, retired employees cannot be placed in a disadvantaged class vis-à-vis serving employees.
Title: Rajesh Kumar Giri and others v. Union of India and others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 462
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has quashed an order of the Chandigarh Housing Board (CHB) rejecting the claims of a group of jhuggi dwellers for allotment of flats under the Chandigarh Small Flats Scheme, 2006, holding that the decision was taken in violation of the principles of natural justice.
Justice Anupinder Singh Grewal and Justice Mandeep Pannu said, "It is manifest that the claim of the petitioners, who are jhuggi dwellers, was under consideration for allotment of flat under the 2006 Scheme but the same has been rejected without issuance of any notice or granting an opportunity of hearing to them. It is trite that the right to housing is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the petitioners being jhuggi dwellers have every right to be considered for allotment of a flat under the 2006 Scheme."
Title: MMTC LTD. v. STATEOF HARYANAANDORS.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 463
In a significant relief to a Government of India Public Sector Undertaking (PSU), the Punjab & Haryana High Court has set aside orders passed by the Assessing Authority and the Haryana Tax Tribunal disallowing Recurring Deposit sale deduction on the basis that the ST-15 forms furnished by purchasing dealers were stolen or not backed by renewed registration.
A bench of Justice Jagmohan Bansal and Justice Amarinder Singh Grewal noted, "It is undisputed that forms were genuine though stolen. Had forms been forged or fabricated, the situation could be different. The petitioner had no source to verify genuineness of the certificates. Even otherwise it was not responsibility of the petitioner, as per statutory provisions, to verify genuineness of certificates. The petitioner was not party to theft. If petitioner is denied benefit of aforesaid forms, it would be punishment to petitioner without its fault."
Title: STATE BANK OF INDIA v. SUB REGISTRAR, SUB TEHSIL NIGHDU KARNAL AND OTHERS
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 464
Observing that post-notification of Section 26E of the SARFAESI Act on 24.01.2020, debts due to secured creditors must be accorded statutory priority over all other dues, the Punjab & Haryana High Court has clarified that in all cases where the charge was created after the said date, secured creditors will rank above State revenue claims.
The Court noted that numerous litigations are pending on this issue and expressly reaffirmed the legal position before parting with the judgment.
Title: KRISHNA DEVI v. STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 465
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has directed the Haryana Government to regularise the services of a woman Sewer Helper who had been engaged on daily-wage basis since 1997, holding that her right under the 2003–2004 Regularisation Policies had crystallised long before the State withdrew those schemes.
Observing that "This Court cannot remain impervious to the prolonged hardship, indignity, and uncertainty endured by this vulnerable segment of the workforce. Though no measure can truly compensate for the years lost, justice demands at least a meaningful redress", it directed the authorities to confer regular status within one month, along with all consequential benefits and arrears with 6% interest.
Title: Akash Walia v. State of Haryana and another
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 466
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has quashed a Judicial Magistrate's order granting regular bail to an accused in an intimidation case after finding that the Magistrate and the accused were related—though distantly—holding that such consanguinity created a “real likelihood of bias” sufficient to vitiate the order.
Justice Sumeet Goel, said "A fact that cannot be lost sight of is that a Judge/Magistrate may possess remote or highly attenuated collateral consanguinity with a litigant, the existence of which may remain genuinely unknown to the concerned Judge/Magistrate. Notwithstanding this bona fide ignorance, the threshold for evaluating the potential existence of perception of biasness/prejudice is the objective standard of the reasonably informed and prudent person."
Title: Mohd. Arif and others v. State of Haryana and another
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 467
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has dismissed a plea seeking quashing of a cruelty FIR observing that the alleged reference to a deceased mother-in-law in the complaint appeared to be a typographical error and could not, by itself, justify quashing of criminal proceedings. In FIR it was alleged that the mother in law of the complainant who had already passed away 23 years ago used to harass her for dowry.
Title: Parkash Singh Marwah v. State of UT Chandigarh & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 468
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has dismissed a petition seeking quashing of an FIR registered against an advocate who was accused of impersonating a Judicial Magistrate and obstructing police officials during a traffic check in Chandigarh.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 469
Emphasising that the right to be free from disability-based discrimination, as enshrined in the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, must be regarded with the same seriousness and protection as a fundamental right—ensuring that no employee is excluded from consideration solely on the basis of disability—the Punjab and Haryana High Court directed the Haryana Government to grant retrospective promotions with consequential benefits to a visually impaired Forest Department employee under the statutory disability quota.
Title: Pawan Kumar v. State of U.T. Chandigarh
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 470
While the Punjab & Haryana Hig Court affirmed the findings of guilt recorded by the Trial Court and the Appellate Court against a Truck Driver for rash and negligent driving, it modified the order on sentence, reducing the substantive imprisonment to the period already undergone, considering long passage of time and mitigating circumstances.
Justice Vinod S. Bhardwaj said, "I find that the protracted criminal trial and the consequent agony faced by the petitioner, the actual sentence, out of total sentence, already undergone by the petitioner, the reformative tendency shown by the petitioner by not indulging in any other offence as well as the legal principles reproduced above are sufficient mitigating circumstances to reduce the quantum of sentence awarded to the petitioner."
Title: Ashok Kumar Yadav v. Central Bureau of Investigation, Chandigarh
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 471
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has said that when a seized vehicle has played only an ancillary or incidental role in the alleged offence, the conditions imposed for its release on superdari must be carefully calibrated and cannot be punitive in nature.
Emphasising the principle of proportionality, the Court held that the primary purpose of a superdari bond is merely to secure the production of the property before the Court as and when required, and not to operate as an indemnity equivalent to the vehicle's full market value.
Title: XXXX v. XXXX
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 472
While refusing to enhance maintenance granted to a wife, the Punjab & Haryana High Court directed her to use 10% of the maintenance being received by her for skill development. The bench reasoned that object of maintenance is not limited to mere subsistence but extends to enabling long-term dignity and self-reliance.
Justice Alok Jain said, "the petitioner is required to enhance her capabilities and stature in life so as to become self-reliant, only then it would reflect that the true intent of the maintenance legislation has been fulfilled and the maintenance awarded is being utilized in its correct perspective. Therefore, this Court considered it appropriate to direct the petitioner, that out of the maintenance amount of Rs. 15,000/- awarded to her, she must utilize at least 10% thereof, for improving her vocational skills."
Title: Amritpal Singh v. Union of India & Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 473
The Punjab & Haryana High Court today said that the plea filed by MP Amritpal Singh seeking parole to attend the ongoing Winter Session of Parliament has become “virtually infructuous”, as tomorrow is the last day of the session and the arguments could not be completed in time due to abstention from work by lawyers.
Amritpal Singh, a sitting Member of Parliament, had approached the High Court challenging State's refusal to grant him parole to attend the Parliament.
Title: Municipal Corporation, Jalandhar v. M/s JITF Urban Waste Management
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 474
The Punjab and Haryana High Court Bench of Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sanjiv Berry has observed that being a statutory body does not entitle a party to claim unconditional grant of stay under Section 36, Arbitration and Conciliation Act (“ACA”) as a matter of right. And if a conditional stay is granted, a statutory body is to be treated at par with a private party.
Title: Ram Lubhaya and others v. State of Punjab and another
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 475
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that courts may not impose a condition requiring deposit of passport while granting bail in routine manner, observing that "the passport, is not only required as a travel document, but is also required for other purposes especially as means of identification."
Allowing a petition challenging a bail condition, the Court quashed the requirement directing the petitioners to deposit their passports, while simultaneously mandating that they seek prior permission from the trial court before travelling abroad.
Title: State of Haryana v. Ashok Kumar
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 476
Observing that the murder stemmed from personal animosity arising out of a family property dispute and not “social revenge”, and noting that the convict was over 60 years of age with no history of violent behaviour, the Punjab & Haryana High Court has commuted the death sentence awarded to a man convicted of murdering and beheading his younger brother.
While upholding the conviction under Sections 302 and 201 of the IPC, the Court found that the case did not satisfy the “rarest of rare” threshold warranting capital punishment, and instead sentenced the convict to life imprisonment with a mandatory minimum of 20 years of actual incarceration without remission, along with an enhanced fine payable as compensation to the victim's family.
TITLE: D.Y PATIL VIDYAPEETH AND OTHERS V. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 477
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has quashed a nearly two-decade-old criminal complaint alleging cheating and criminal breach of trust in connection with a purported MBBS admission, holding that the petitioners could not be subjected to criminal prosecution merely because a third party had allegedly cheated the complainant by misusing their name and documents.
Title: Sukhwinder Kaur v. State of Punjab and others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 478
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has reiterated that compassionate appointment is not a vested right but a concession, to be granted strictly in accordance with policy and only to mitigate immediate financial distress caused by the death of a government employee in harness.
Dismissing a writ petition, the Court upheld the rejection of a married daughter's claim for compassionate appointment, holding that the authority was justified in examining factors such as her marital status, husband's income, existence of other earning siblings, and lack of continuous dependency.
Title: Ram Lal Mahendru v. State of Haryana and others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 479
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that the Haryana Shehri Vikas Pradhikaran (HSVP, formerly HUDA) cannot charge the current reserve price for plots allotted to land oustees when the delay in allotment is attributable to the authority itself. The Court further ruled that levy of 11% interest is not “reasonable interest” within the meaning of the Full Bench judgment in Rajiv Manchanda v. HUDA and directed that 5.5% interest be charged instead.
Title: State of Haryana v. Virender @ Bholu
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 480
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has commuted the death sentence awarded to Virender alias Bholu, convicted for the rape and murder of a five-and-a-half-year-old girl, to rigorous imprisonment for life with a minimum of 30 years' actual incarceration without remission with 30 lakhs of fine to be paid to the victim's family.
The Court acquitted convict's mother convicted by the Trial Court under Section 201, 120-B IPC, observing that "Kamla Devi s only fault is that she was trying to protect her Raja-beta, for which she cannot be punished under the Indian Penal Code; however condemnable her conduct may be."
Title: Karan Paul v. KPH Dream Cricket Private Limited & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 481
The Punjab and Haryana High Court, on 23rd December 2025, appointed Justice Harinder Singh Sidhu as the sole arbitrator to resolve a dispute over the "rotational chairmanship" of KPH Dream Cricket Private Limited, the company that owns and administers the IPL franchise - Punjab Kings. Additionally, the Court noted that when appointing an arbitrator under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, the role of the judiciary is restricted to the determination of the arbitration agreement's existence rather than conducting a “mini trial” thorough examination of the merits or arbitrability.
Title: M/s Garg Furnance Limited Vs. Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 482
The High Court of Punjab and Haryana has held that tax authorities cannot block a taxpayer's Electronic Credit Ledger (ECL) beyond the Input Tax Credit (ITC) actually available at the time of action, and that creating a negative ITC balance under Rule 86A of the CGST Rules, 2017 is without jurisdiction.
A Division Bench of Justice Lisa Gill and Justice Parmod Goyal was hearing a writ petition filed by M/s Garg Furnace Limited, which challenged the blocking of its ECL on 01.10.2025 resulting in a negative ITC balance, allegedly without notice and in violation of Rule 86A and principles of natural justice.