Nominal IndexDinesh Chand Bansal v. State of Haryana and and. 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 43Jatin Salwan v. Central Bureau of Investigation 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 44 XXX v. XXX: 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 45State of Punjab and others v. Rajwinder Singh 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 46Jal Kaur through her LR Hamir Singh v. Ajaib Singh Bahal @ Ajaib Singh and others 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 47Ajit Singh v. Punjab Mandi Board and...
Nominal Index
Dinesh Chand Bansal v. State of Haryana and and. 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 43
Jatin Salwan v. Central Bureau of Investigation 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 44
XXX v. XXX: 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 45
State of Punjab and others v. Rajwinder Singh 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 46
Jal Kaur through her LR Hamir Singh v. Ajaib Singh Bahal @ Ajaib Singh and others 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 47
Ajit Singh v. Punjab Mandi Board and others 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 48
National Insurance Company Limited v. Smt. Laltesh and others 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 49
Lt. Col. Ashok Bembey v. Punjab State Electricity Regulatory Commission and another 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 50
Surinder Pal Singh V/s State of Punjab and another 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 51
Ravinder v. State of Haryana and Others 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 52
XXXX v. XXX 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 53
Chameli Devi and others v. Sanjeev Kumar and others 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 54
PARAS THAKUR AND ANOTHER v. STATE OF PUNJAB 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 55
Vijay Kumar v. State of Haryana and another 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 56
Rajbir Singh Brar v. Gaurav Yadav and others 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 57
CHOPRA HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED v. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 58
Satnam Kaur v. State of Punjab 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 59
Satbir Singh v. State of Haryana and others 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 60
Harmeet Singh Pathanmajra v. State of Punjab and another 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 61
Aashish Verma v. Union of India though Narcotics Control Bureau, Amritsar Zonal Unit, Amritsar 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 62
Sahil Garg v. State of Punjab 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 63
Saurav @Saurav Dhaiya v. State of Haryana 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 64
Harcharan Singh Bhullar @ H.S. Bhullar v. Central Bureau of Investigation 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 65
Gurudev and others v. State of Haryana and another 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 66
Arjun Walia v. Tarun Batra and another 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 67
Mohan Lal (deceased) through his LRs v. The A.E.E./T & S.W. Workshop, H.S.E.B. Colony (now U.H.B.V.N.), Kunjpura Road, Karnal, and others 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 68
Purshutam Goel v. State of Haryana and others 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 69
Birendra Singh Rawat v. State of Punjab and another 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 70
Pradeep Kumar Tomar and another v. State of Haryana and another 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 71
SHRUTI JAIN & ORS. v. STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 72
XXXX v. XXXX 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 73
Naveen Kumar v. State of Haryana and others 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 74
AJL v CBI 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 75
KARTIK SAINI v. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 76
Chhinder Kumar @ Chindi @ Shindi v. State of Punjab 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 77
RAMA KANT SHARMA v. STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 78
Dheeraj Gupta v. State of Haryana and anr. 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 79
Reports
Title: Dinesh Chand Bansal v. State of Haryana and and.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 43
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has said that, "judicial error is not synonymous with judicial partiality and hence mere passing of an unfavourable order, or even an order subsequently set aside by a superior Court, does not ipso facto establish a foundation for bias or prejudice."
Justice Sumeet Goel said, "Litigants often misinterpret an adverse or unfavourable judicial order as an indication of inherent bias, leading to a proliferation of unfounded transfer applications that threaten the very stability of the legal process. It must be underscored that a Presiding Officer/trial Judge has to perform his duty and not to succumb to the pressure put by the litigant(s) by making callous allegations. He is not expected to show unnecessary sensitivity to such allegations and recuse himself from the case."
Title: Jatin Salwan v. Central Bureau of Investigation
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 44
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has dismissed a regular bail plea filed by an Advocate accused of demanding illegal gratification of ₹30 lakh for allegedly influencing a judicial officer to secure a favourable order in a divorce case, holding that the allegations strike at the very foundation of the justice delivery system and warrant a cautious approach.
Justice Sumeet Goel said, "In cases involving corruption and misuse of influence in the judicial process, such factors by themselves are not sufficient to grant bail especially when the allegations are supported by prima facie material. The petitioner is an Advocate with long professional experience. At this stage, it cannot be said that there does not exist a reasonable apprehension/concern that his release may affect the course of investigation or trial including the possibility of influencing the witness(s)."
Title: XXX v. XXX
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 45
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has quashed an FIR registered under Sections 376 (rape) and 420 (cheating) IPC, holding that a failed consensual relationship, which does not culminate in marriage due to temperamental differences, cannot be converted into a criminal prosecution.
Justice Alok Jain said, "the present FIR seems to be an abuse of process of law, as it is apparent that both the parties were major and in a consensual relationship and the subsequent fall out of the relationship was only on account of the temperament differences. Therefore, the same cannot be considered as an offence under Section 376 of IPC."
Title: State of Punjab and others v. Rajwinder Singh
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 46
Observing that unreasoned, cryptic orders reflect a “lingering hangover of monarchical practices” incompatible with constitutional governance, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has dismissed a Second Appeal filed by the Punjab Government, holding that cancellation of a confirmed public auction by a one-word order without notice or hearing is arbitrary, unconstitutional and violative of Articles 14 and 21.
Justice Virinder Aggarwal said, "Such arbitrary exercise of power appears to be under the lingering hangover of monarchical practices prevalent prior to independence, when unreasoned commands were the norm. The times, however, have long changed. In a sovereign democratic republic governed by the Constitution of India, every public authority is bound by the rule of law and cannot act according to personal whims or unfettered discretion."
Title: Jal Kaur through her LR Hamir Singh v. Ajaib Singh Bahal @ Ajaib Singh and others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 47
While dismissing a plea for transfer of case from one district to another, the Punjab & Haryana High Court made it clear that the applicant has to pin point the circumstances, under which, he gathers impression that justice will not be done, mere apprehension against a lawyer is not sufficient.
The transfer plea was filed on the ground that respondent is a local advocate in the same District where the civil suit is pending, and due to his alleged influence, the applicant was unable to secure legal assistance at the Jagraon courts.
Title: Ajit Singh v. Punjab Mandi Board and others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 48
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has dismissed a plea seeking refixation of pay and consequential retiral benefits, holding that a claim raised decades after the alleged cause of action and nearly seven years after retirement is barred by delay and laches.
Justice Harpreet Singh Brar noted, "the petitioner has approached this Court after a considerable lapse of time. The alleged wrong fixation occurred in the year 1996; the petitioner retired on 31.05.2017, yet the first representation was made by him only on 26.08.2024 (Annexure P-5), followed by a legal notice dated 29.08.2025 (Annexure P-6). Repeated representations will not keep the issues alive and no plausible explanation has been offered by learned counsel for the petitioner for the delay in filing the present petition. Since the petitioner is no longer in service, the benefit of "continuing wrong" is no longer available to him."
Title: National Insurance Company Limited v. Smt. Laltesh and others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 49
Dismissing an appeal filed by the insurance company against a motor accident compensation award, the Punjab & Haryana High Court has reiterated that courts exercising jurisdiction under the Motor Vehicles Act are duty-bound to award just and fair compensation, even if it results in enhancement of the award in the absence of any cross-objection or cross-appeal by the claimants.
Justice Sudeepti Sharma said, "this Court can award just and reasonable compensation by enhancing the amount of compensation, even in the absence of a cross- objection or cross-appeal by the claimants...This conclusion is further strengthened by the settled principle that a Court adjudicating claims under the Motor Vehicles Act is duty- bound to award just and fair compensation to victims of road accidents, unrestrained by strict rules of pleadings and evidence, as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Nagappa v. Gurudayal Singh & Ors (2003)2SCC 274."
Title: Lt. Col. Ashok Bembey v. Punjab State Electricity Regulatory Commission and another
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 50
Dismissing a writ petition filed by an ex-serviceman seeking pensionary benefits for his civil re-employment, the High Court has held that pension cannot be claimed merely on the basis of long duration of service, unless the appointment is substantive, permanent, and governed by rules providing for pension.
Justice Harpreet Singh Brar said, "Since the very inception, the petitioner was well aware of the fact that he was a temporary employee whose services could be terminated at any point of time. Thus, there never existed an occasion, where he could have had a legitimate expectation to be treated as a permanent and regular employee by virtue of the nature of his employment. As such, it is abundantly clear that the petitioner is not entitled to any pension or pensionary benefits in view of the nature of his appointment or in terms of the applicable rules and regulations."
Anticipatory Bail Granted On Settlement Can Be Cancelled If Compromise Is Breached: P&H High Court
Title: Surinder Pal Singh V/s State of Punjab and another
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 51
Holding that an accused cannot secure anticipatory bail on the strength of a compromise and later resile from solemn undertakings made to the Court, the High Court has recalled an anticipatory bail order granted in 2022, observing that such conduct amounts to misuse of judicial leniency and breach of judicial trust.
Justice Sumeet Goel said, "This Court takes judicial notice of a burgeoning and distressing trend wherein accused-petitioners utilize the prospect of an amicable settlement as a strategic artifice to procure discretionary relief, only to subsequently repudiate their commitments once liberty is secured. Such conduct leaves the complainant in a state of precarious vulnerability and reduces the machinery of justice to a state of suspended animation. This maneouver of securing freedom through the pretense of restitution, is a flagrant manipulation of the Court's leniency."
Title: Ravinder v. State of Haryana and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 52
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has set aside the cancellation of appointment of a Haryana Police constable whose candidature was terminated for allegedly not disclosing an FIR that had already been cancelled by the trial court prior to submission of the application and attestation form.
Justice Jagmohan Bansal referring to Punjab Police Rules (as applicable to Haryana) said, "There is no sub- column mandating the candidates to disclose status of an FIR which has already been cancelled. Column No. 13(I)(a) is applicable in case of arrest; (b) in case of prosecution; (c) in case of detention; (d) in case of bound down; (e) in case of fine imposed by Court; and (f) in case of conviction by Court; and Clause (i) in case, any case is pending in Court of law or with Police at the time of filing attestation form to pending criminal case.
Title: XXXX v. XXX
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 53
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has suspended the sentence of a convict sentenced to 20 years' imprisonment under Section 4(2) of the POCSO Act, noting that both the accused and the victim were minors at the time of the incident, the age gap between them was minimal, and the appeal is not likely to be heard in the near future.
A division bench of Justice Anoop Chitkara and Justice Sukhvinder Kaur said, "an analysis of the allegations indicates that the coitus, if any, was consensual; there is no allegation of him being cruel while doing the act, the absence of injuries on the victim, are circumstances which all need to be appreciated by analyzing the evidence in great detail. However, the fundamental legal obstacle for the boy is that the girl cannot consent to sexual intercourse unless she is aged eighteen, and even if she gives her consent to have sex, it shall amount to statutory rape as defined in §63 of BNS, 2023 and §§3 and/or 5 of POCSO Act, 2012. Probably, neither the boy nor the girl would be aware of the Sovereign's restrictions before they could go intimate."
Title: Chameli Devi and others v. Sanjeev Kumar and others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 54
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that family pension received by the widow of a deceased cannot be deducted while computing loss of dependency under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
Justice Sudeepti Sharma referring to Mrs. Helen C. Rebello & Ors. v. Maharashtra State Road Transport Corpn. & Anr.[ AIR, 1998 SC 3191], the Court reiterated that, "family pension is also earned by an employee for the benefit of his family in the form of contribution of his services in terms of service conditions, which becomes receivable by the heirs on his demise. There is no co-relation between the family pension, which in any case the family would have got and the amount which is paid on account of accidental death."
Title: PARAS THAKUR AND ANOTHER v. STATE OF PUNJAB
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 55
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that granting extension of time to file a chargesheet under the NDPS Act without producing the accused or giving them an opportunity of hearing is a gross illegality, as it deprives the accused of their indefeasible right to default bail and violates Article 21 of the Constitution.
The Court accordingly quashed an order passed by the Special Court, Gurdaspur, which had extended the time for filing the challan and rejected the accused persons' plea for default bail.
Title: Vijay Kumar v. State of Haryana and another
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 56
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has said that seriousness of offence cannot justify transfer of a criminal trial, reiterating that the power of transfer under Section 448 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 408 CrPC) must be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional circumstances.
The Court refused to cancel pre-arrest bail of a man accused of posing as ED officer in order to extort money.
Punjab & Haryana High Court Imposes ₹3 Lakh Cost On Litigant For Filing Frivolous Contempt Ple
Title: Rajbir Singh Brar v. Gaurav Yadav and others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 57
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has dismissed a contempt petition alleging non-compliance with its earlier directions, holding that the plea was frivolous, vexatious and a gross abuse of the process of law, and imposed exemplary costs of ₹3,00,000 on the petitioner, payable to the official respondents.
At the outset, the Court warned the petitioner—who appeared in person—that costs of ₹1,00,000 would be imposed if the contempt petition was found to be frivolous. In response, the petitioner insisted that costs of ₹2,00,000 be imposed instead if the petition lacked merit.
Title: CHOPRA HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED v. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 58
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has declined to entertain plea filed by Chopra Hotels Private Limited challenging demolition and sealing orders passed by the Jalandhar Municipal Corporation, holding that an efficacious statutory remedy of appeal lies before the District Judge under Section 269 of the Punjab Municipal Corporation Act, 1976.
The company is linked to the Hind Samachar and Punjab Kesari newspaper group.
Title: Satnam Kaur v. State of Punjab
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 59
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has granted regular bail to a woman accused of abetting her husband's suicide, observing that the accused must have done some positive act at the time proximate to the occurrence of event.
Justice Manisha Batra explained, "in order to bring a case within the provisions of Section 108 of BNS, undoubtedly, there must be a case of suicide and in the commission of the said offence, the person who is said to have abetted the commission of suicide must have played an active role by act of instigation and doing certain acts to facilitate the commission of suicide. The prosecution must show a proof of direct or indirect act of incitement by the accused in commission of suicide."
Title: Satbir Singh v. State of Haryana and others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 60
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has set aside the punishment of stoppage of three annual increments with permanent effect imposed on a Haryana Police officer, holding that review powers under Rule 16.28 of the Punjab Police Rules (PPR) must be exercised within a reasonable period and cannot be invoked mechanically after inordinate delay.
Justice Jagmohan Bansal said, "The impugned order is further bad on account of violation of principle of reasonable period of limitation. The respondent has downgraded petitioner's ACR on the basis of Government instruction dated 22.10.2001 As per aforesaid instructions, Disciplinary Authority may downgrade ACR either at the time of awarding punishment or subsequently."
Title: Harmeet Singh Pathanmajra v. State of Punjab and another
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 61
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has refused to quash arrest warrants and proclamation proceedings issued against Aam Aadmi Party MLA Harmeet Singh Pathanmajra in a rape and cheating case.
Justice Tribhuvan Dahiya said, "the petitioner, who is accused of serious and heinous offences, has deliberately disregarded the investigative process and is absconding. He is also accused of slipping out of the country by adopting fraudulent means. Issuance of arrest warrants against him, therefore, cannot be termed a measure of harassment; rather, it was justified to secure his presence for investigation."
Title: Aashish Verma v. Union of India though Narcotics Control Bureau, Amritsar Zonal Unit, Amritsar
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 62
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has dismissed eight connected regular bail petitions arising out of a massive seizure of over 1.37 crore psychotropic tablets, holding that the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act are clearly attracted and that licensed pharmaceutical operations cannot, at this stage, dilute the gravity of organised diversion allegations.
Justice Sumeet Goel said, "The grant of bail, though discretionary, assumes a narrower compass where allegations pertain to organised diversion of regulated pharmaceutical substances into illicit channels under the guise of lawful business operations. Courts have consistently cautioned that entities operating within the pharmaceutical sector cannot be permitted to cloak unlawful activities behind the facade of licences or corporate structures, particularly where the allegations disclose large-scale commercial dealings capable of undermining the statutory framework of the NDPS Act. It is a settled principle that legality of form cannot defeat scrutiny of substance; the mere existence of licences or corporate entities does not, by itself, dispel a prima facie inference arising from surrounding circumstances."
Title: Sahil Garg v. State of Punjab
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 63
The Punjab and Haryana High Court refused anticipatory bail to an Advocate, booked in a rice trading fraud case, holding that the filing of two separate pre-arrest bail petitions in the same FIR—supported by affidavits denying pendency of similar proceedings—amounted to “forum shopping” and an affront to judicial sanctity.
Justice Sumeet Goel observed that the petitioner had sought discretionary relief through two petitions filed via different counsel, both based on the same FIR. The Court noted that each petition was supported by a solemn affidavit stating that no similar proceedings had been filed or were pending.
Title: Saurav @Saurav Dhaiya v. State of Haryana
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 64
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has granted interim anticipatory bail to the main accused Saurav @ Saurav Dhaiya booked for assaulting a lawyer, arising out of a neighbourhood dispute in Sonipat.
It was alleged that the lawyer was assaulted with an intention to kill him and his car's windshield was smashed. The District Bar Association also observed one day strike demanding strict action.
Justice Surya Partap Singh observed that the matter appeared to be a case of version and cross-version, and that the injuries suffered by the complainant were not declared grievous.
Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Bail To DIG HS Bhullar In Corruption Case
Title: Harcharan Singh Bhullar @ H.S. Bhullar v. Central Bureau of Investigation
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 65
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has dismissed the regular bail plea of Harcharan Singh Bhullar @ H.S. Bhullar, a senior Punjab Police officer, in a corruption case registered by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).
Justice Sumeet Goel noted that the offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, particularly when attributed to an officer of such rank, has serious ramifications for the integrity of the criminal justice system and erodes public confidence in the administration of law.
Title: Gurudev and others v. State of Haryana and another
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 66
The Full Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court has answered a reference on whether two Division Bench judgments concerning counting of past service for pensionary benefits were contradictory, holding that there exists no real conflict between them as they were rendered in distinct factual and statutory contexts.
Chief Justice Sheel Nagu, Justice Vinod S. Bhardwaj and Justice Jagmohan Bansal said, "An alleged conflict between judgments must be real, direct and irreconcilable on a question of law arising from comparable facts and governed by the same legal regime. A divergence in outcome or reference to a policy or instruction in different factual or statutory contexts, does not ipso facto constitute a conflict. Artificial inconsistencies must not be created by reading judgments dehors the issues framed, the statutory framework applicable or the precise relief sought."
Title: Arjun Walia v. Tarun Batra and another
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 67
Observing that that the burden lies on a convict to demonstrate special or compelling circumstances to seek waiver of the statutory deposit under Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the Punjab & Haryana High Court held that direction to deposit a minimum of 20% of the compensation amount is the general rule at the appellate stage.
Justice Sumeet Goel said, "The convict bears the onus of demonstrating special, exceptional or compelling circumstances to persuade the appellate Court to waive or relax the statutory requirement of deposit under Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. In the absence of such exceptional circumstances, the legislative mandate ordinarily prevails. Considering the legislative intent behind the provision—namely, to expedite the recovery process and to mitigate the hardship caused to the complainant due to protracted appellate proceedings—it is both reasonable and in consonance with statutory purpose for the appellate Court to impose the condition of deposit when an appeal is preferred against a conviction under Section 138 of the NI Act."
Title: Mohan Lal (deceased) through his LRs v. The A.E.E./T & S.W. Workshop, H.S.E.B. Colony (now U.H.B.V.N.), Kunjpura Road, Karnal, and others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 68
In a significant ruling on disability rights and service equality, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that a workman who suffered permanent disability during service cannot be denied promotion in a discriminatory manner when similarly placed juniors were elevated.
Justice Namit Kumar said, "such an unsubstantial act of the respondents-department in discriminating the plaintiff is wholly unjustified and cannot be sustained by any stretch of imagination. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the act of the respondents-department in discriminating and ignoring the plaintiff in a pick and choose manner is wholly arbitrary, unreasonable and violative of the principles of equality and fairness enshrined in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India."
Title: Purshutam Goel v. State of Haryana and others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 69
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that penalties imposed in departmental actions must bear a reasonable nexus with the gravity of misconduct proved.
Justice Harpreet Singh Brar said, "The scope of interference in disciplinary proceedings is very limited. It is settled law that this Court may only exercise its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India when the findings recorded in a disciplinary action are arbitrary, disproportionate, tainted with procedural illegality, or manifest prejudice. The Court must confine itself to ensuring that the findings are justified by the material on record, the proceedings were conducted in compliance with prescribed procedure and principles of natural justice, and the penalty imposed is proportionate to the misconduct."
Title: Birendra Singh Rawat v. State of Punjab and another
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 70
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has upheld the State's decision to initiate a fresh recruitment process for the post of Member (Non-Judicial), Punjab State Human Rights Commission (PSHRC), despite an earlier recommendation in favour of the petitioner.
Justice N.S. Shekhawat noted, "During the course of arguments, no such infirmity has been pointed out by the petitioner. Even otherwise, in the present case, the matter remained pending for almost 03 years and the initiation of a fresh recruitment process, after passage of considerable time, constitutes a legitimate administrative response aimed at ensuring efficacy in public administration."
Title: Pradeep Kumar Tomar and another v. State of Haryana and another
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 71
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that criminal proceedings under Section 304-A IPC involving loss of human life cannot be quashed merely on the basis of a compromise between the accused and the deceased's relatives, observing that “the silence of the grave cannot be substituted by the signatures of the heirs on a compromise deed.”
Justice Sumeet Goel said, "The essential edifice of quashing criminal proceedings on the basis of a compromise, rests upon the absence of any subsisting grievance by the victim against the accused. However, in cases of homicidal negligence, the deceased remains the primary aggrieved party. Any settlement entered into by the relatives is, at best, a secondary resolution that cannot supersede the interest of the state, acting as parens patriae, in prosecuting an act that has extinguished a human life."
Title: SHRUTI JAIN & ORS. v. STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 72
In a significant ruling, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that Assistant Advocate Generals (AAGs) and Deputy Advocate Generals (DAGs) engaged by the State of Haryana are entitled to Leave Travel Concession (LTC), medical reimbursement and earned leave, observing that the State cannot deny core service benefits solely on the basis of the nomenclature of “contractual engagement”.
Justice Sandeep Moudgil said, "the petitioners as AAG/DAG are performing duties with higher responsibility and quantum of work than the other Law Officers working in various departments of the State Government. The petitioners not only plead cases and defend the State of Haryana in the Courts but are also made to given legal opinions, vetting of replies/written statements consultation with the Officers of the department related to the case of the State and other administrative assignments as asked by the Advocate General, Government of Haryana."
Title: SHRUTI JAIN & ORS. v. STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 73
Observing that the legal profession is inherently service-oriented and historically rooted in the concept of dharma, the Punjab and Haryana High Court recently underscored the constitutional stature of State Law Officers while holding that their rights cannot be curtailed merely by labelling their engagement as “contractual”.
Justice Sandeep Moudgil said, "The legal profession, at its core, is a service-oriented profession. The history of the legal profession is inseparable from the history of justice itself. The lawyer emerged as a spokesperson for rights, a mediator of disputes, and eventually as an officer of the court. In India, this journey reflects a distinctive civilizational trajectory, rooted in dharma, refined through colonial institutionalization, and transformed by constitutionalism."
Title: Naveen Kumar v. State of Haryana and others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 74
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that a government employee cannot be denied permission to pursue higher education through distance mode merely on the ground of not having completed three years of service, observing that the right to education is an inalienable human right flowing from Article 21 of the Constitution.
Justice Harpreet Singh Brar said, "The right to education has been vested with the gravity of being an inalienable human right. Denying the right to pursue any educational qualification to any individual who is willing to pursue it, at any stage of life would be violative of the Fundamental Right to Education and thus could not be justly taken away or forfeited, as these rights are inherent, permanent, and essential to human dignity from birth throughout one's entire existence."
Title: AJL v CBI
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 75
The Punjab & Haryana High Court quashed charges against former Haryana CM Bhupinder Singh Hooda and Company owned by Congress leader Sonia Gandhi and Rahul Gandhi Associated Journals Limited (AJL) in case pertaining to irregularities in re-allotment of land in Panchkula.
Justice Tribhuvan Dahiya said, "The allotment is valid as on date, it has also not been cancelled, nor declared illegal or arbitrary. Instead, the AJL after payment of re-allotment price as well as the extension fee has raised construction, and has been given occupation certificate by the Authority on 14.08.2014. No grievance has been raised regarding any loss to the Authority; nor has the AJL or any other accused been called upon to make good any perceived harm. Even the Government auditors have dropped their objection regarding financial loss to the Authority on account of this re-allotment.”
Title: KARTIK SAINI v. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 76
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that a reserved category candidate who avails relaxation at the screening stage of a multi-tier selection process cannot subsequently seek migration to the General category on the basis of higher marks secured in the final merit.
Dismissing the plea, Justice Harpreet Singh Brar said, "A reserved category candidate who avails relaxation at any stage of the examination process, including the preliminary/screening stage, cannot thereafter claim allocation against an unreserved vacancy."
Title: Chhinder Kumar @ Chindi @ Shindi v. State of Punjab
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 77
Observing that "offences of this nature strike at the very root of public order and societal conscience," the Punjab and Haryana High Court has denied regular bail to an accused in a 2021 double murder case allegedly arising out of an honour killing.
Justice Sumeet Goel said, granting bail in such cases would not only undermine the gravity of the offence but may also embolden the accused.
Title: RAMA KANT SHARMA v. STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 78
In a significant ruling reinforcing the constitutional right to health and dignity, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that the State cannot mechanically restrict medical reimbursement to notified PGI/AIIMS rates when life-saving treatment was taken in a non-empanelled private hospital during a certified emergency.
Justice Sandeep Moudgil said "it is important to bear in mind that self preservation of one's life is the necessary concomitant of the right to life enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India, fundamental in nature, sacred, precious and inviolable. The principle that a person possesses both a duty and a right to preserve one's own life finds clear expression in the doctrine of private defence recognised in criminal jurisprudence."
Title: Dheeraj Gupta v. State of Haryana and anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 79
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has quashed an FIR registered against a Gurugram resident over a WhatsApp comment made in a housing society group, holding that the remark, though “not in good taste”, did not amount to obscenity, sexual harassment, or insult to modesty under the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
"Jaane kitne dinon ke baad society me abb chand nikla," had remarked the resident.
Justice Shalini Singh Nagpal said, "to attract the culpability of Section 294 IPC, the words used must be capable of arousing sexually impure thoughts in the mind of the person who heard the word or saw them, thus causing annoyance. The message posted by the petitioner does not fall in that category. Though the words used are not in good taste and appear to have been used mockingly, they do not satisfy the definition of obscenity within the four corners of Section 294 IPC."