Nominal Index [Citations 176 - 212] XXXXX v. XXXX 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 176Sukhdev Singh @ Rinku v. State of Punjab 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 177 Dr. Rohit Lalit and others v. State of Haryana and another 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 178 Anil Kumar Kaushik v. State of Punjab 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 179COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION v. JYOTI MALHOTRA AND OTHERS 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 180KARAM SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB 2026 LiveLaw...
Nominal Index [Citations 176 - 212]
XXXXX v. XXXX 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 176
Sukhdev Singh @ Rinku v. State of Punjab 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 177
Dr. Rohit Lalit and others v. State of Haryana and another 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 178
Anil Kumar Kaushik v. State of Punjab 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 179
COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION v. JYOTI MALHOTRA AND OTHERS 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 180
KARAM SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 181
Rajkumar Yadav @Rajkumar Rao v. State of Punjab and another 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 182
Gurjinder Singh v. State of Punjab & Anr. 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 183
Manpreet Kaur v. Punjab State Power Corporation Limited (PSPCL) 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 184
SUSHMA VALENCIA APARTMENT OWNERS ASSOCIATION VS STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 185
Ashok Kumar Goel and others v. Union of India and others 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 186
Ravi Shankar and others v. State of Haryana 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 187
Dishant Goel v. Union Of India & Others 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 188
Ashok Khemka v. Union of India and another 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 189
Ravi Shankar and others v. State of Haryana 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 190
SWATI YADAV v. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 191
ASHWANI KUMAR SHARMA v. RAMA RANI SHARMA AND OTHERS 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 192
Sarwan Singh @ Samma Singh & Others v. Sukhraj Kaur & Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 193
ROHIT LALIT v. SOURABH CHABBRA 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 194
Narender Kumar v. State of Haryana & Anr. 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 195
Manjit Kaur v. State of Punjab and others2026 LiveLaw (PH) 196
JITENDER SINGH ALIAS JEETU v. STATE OF HARYANA THROUGH STATION HOUSE OFFICER, POLICE STATION BAHIN, DISTRICT PALWAL, HARYAN 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 197
AMIT DEWAN v. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATON 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 198
X AND ANOTHER v. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 199
Poonam @ Indira v. Prahlad Sharma and others 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 200.
VIRENDER SINGH AND OTHERS v. JITENDER KUMAR IAS 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 201
Maninderjeet Singh v. Facebook Meta Platform INC and others 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 202
CHANDIGARH GOLF CLUB v. CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION AND ANOTHER 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 203
UNION OF INDIA v. USHA SINGLA AND OTHERS 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 204
Surinder Kumar v. Union of India and others 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 205
PRIYAWART AND OTHERS v. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 206
ANURAG KHULLAR @ VISHAL v. U.T. Chandigarh 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 207
Vardhman Ranjan v. State of Haryana and Another 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 208
Gurwinder Singh @ Baba v. National Investigating Agency, Delhi: 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 209
Ranbir Singh and others v. Haryana State through Collector, Fatehabad 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 210
Fatima Maqsood v. Indian Institute of Technology, Ropar 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 211
Jagwinder Singh @ Joginder Singh v. Ramandeep Khimareet Kaur and others 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 212
Reports
Title: XXXXX v. XXXX
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 176
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has upheld a family court order which had held that a single instance of a spouse meeting a former partner alone cannot, by itself, amount to adultery. At the same time, the Court reiterated that making false and reckless allegations against a spouse and their family members constitutes mental cruelty warranting divorce.
Justice Gurvinder Singh Gill and Justice Ramesh Kumar noted, "trial Court in its rightful wisdom also observed that conduct of respondent-wife in meeting respondent No.2 alone on 11.01.2023 being a single incident cannot be said that she is living in adultery with respondent No.2 nor her previous relationship with respondent No.2 before marriage tantamount to an offence of adultery for the respondent-husband. Learned trial Court rightly dissolved the marriage between the parties on the ground of cruelty on part of respondent-wife."
Title: Sukhdev Singh @ Rinku v. State of Punjab
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 177
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that invoking an incorrect statutory provision while filing a bail appeal under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA) cannot defeat an accused's substantive right to challenge curtailment of liberty.
In doing so the Court granted bail to an accused booked under UAPA, noting his prolonged incarceration of over four and a half years and lack of strong incriminating evidence.
Title: Dr. Rohit Lalit and others v. State of Haryana and another
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 178
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that in cases where the nature of injuries forms the foundation of criminal charges, courts must primarily rely on objective medical evidence, and cannot proceed on speculative or exaggerated claims. The Court modified the charges framed against the accused, holding that offences relating to “grievous hurt” were not made out in the absence of supporting medical material.
Title: Anil Kumar Kaushik v. State of Punjab
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 179
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that recovery of medicines from a location slightly different from the licensed premises, by itself, cannot establish criminal liability under the NDPS Act, particularly when the accused is a licensed dealer.
Justice H.S. Grewal said, "It is apt to notice that merely because the medicines were allegedly recovered from the store room situated behind the petitioner's shop and not from the exact premises mentioned in the licence, by itself, cannot lead to an inference of criminal involvement, particularly when the petitioner was admittedly carrying on a lawful business under a valid licence.”
Title: COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION v. JYOTI MALHOTRA AND OTHERS
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 180
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has dismissed criminal contempt proceedings initiated suo motu against editors and reporters of leading newspapers, holding that publication of a fair and accurate report of a judgment dictated in open court does not amount to contempt, even if the judgment had not yet been formally signed.
Justice Jasgurpreet Singh Puri and Justice Amarjot Bhatti, referring to Section 4 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, noted, "a person shall not be guilty of contempt of Court for publishing judicial proceeding if the same is fairly and accurately reported. In the present case, as observed above, the reporting made in the newspaper was in fact fair and accurate and therefore, would not constitute as contempt of Court in light of the aforesaid provision."
Title: KARAM SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 181
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has granted anticipatory bail to a man booked under the Punjab Excise Act, holding that custodial interrogation cannot be justified merely to extract further information once recovery has already been effected and the accused has cooperated with the investigation.
Justice Sanjay Vashisth said, "Once the recovery stood effected, the plea for custodial interrogation merely to elicit further information could not, by itself, justify the cancellation of interim anticipatory bail. Custodial interrogation cannot be permitted as a means to employ coercive methods for extracting information. It is the duty of the investigating officer to conduct a fair and effective investigation by utilizing lawful means, professional expertise, and assistance of other members of the investigating team to collect evidence and trace the persons involved, if any."
Title: Rajkumar Yadav @Rajkumar Rao v. State of Punjab and another
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 182
While quashing an FIR against Bollywood actor Rajkumar Rao over allegations of hurting religious sentiments through a promotional poster of the film “Behen Hogi Teri”, the Punjab & Haryana High Court held that mere depiction in a creative work, absent deliberate and malicious intent, does not attract criminal liability under Section 295-A IPC.
The plea sought quashing of FIR lodged under IPC Sections 295A(Deliberate and malicious acts, intended to outrage religious feelings of any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs), 120B (criminal conspiracy) and Section 67 IT Act in Punjab's Jalandhar along with non-bailable warrants against him.
Title: Gurjinder Singh v. State of Punjab & Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 183
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has ordered the release of a truck seized in an NDPS case on financial bonds, emphasizing that keeping vehicles idle for prolonged periods leads to deterioration, economic loss, and serves no useful purpose.
Justice Anoop Chitkara and Justice Sukhvinder Kaur said, "...when any confiscated vehicle is kept out of use by placing it in a parking lot, it serves no purpose whatsoever. Eventually, this vehicle will also become unfit for the road and will have to be dismantled, turning it into scrap and, along with this, devaluing it to junk. The vehicle's debris is not without a history: it starts with the excavation of minerals, the journey to refineries and smelters, the production line, and sale; enroute consuming so much toil, time, energy, carbon footprints, space, and money, and if not monetized before its value erodes, everything goes down the drain without recovering even a fraction of the cost of the long lasting pollutants generated in the entire process, and thus, diminishing the entire human effort."
Title: Manpreet Kaur v. Punjab State Power Corporation Limited (PSPCL)
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 184
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that prescribing the last date of submission of applications as the cut-off date for determining eligibility in recruitment processes is neither arbitrary nor unconstitutional, reiterating that candidates must possess the requisite qualifications by the stipulated date.
Dismissing a writ petition filed by a candidate seeking relaxation of eligibility criteria, Justice Harpreet Singh Brar emphasized that such cut-off dates are essential to maintain certainty, fairness, and uniformity in public employment.
Title: SUSHMA VALENCIA APARTMENT OWNERS ASSOCIATION VS STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 185
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has issued interim directions to provide temporary electricity connections to residents of Sushma Valencia Apartments, an allegedly abandoned housing project in Zirakpur, while calling upon authorities to evolve a comprehensive solution to the crisis.
Justice Sanjay Vashisth said, "The citizen of this country are residing in a welfare state and they cannot be left in lurch due to failure of the system/administration. In the scorching heat, which is being experienced in this part of the country now-a- days, a large number of human beings which also includes small children, old aged persons and females, cannot be left remediless and compelled to first fulfil all the rigmaroles of the technicalities to get regular electricity supply. Moreover, such people have invested their hard earned money with the hope to live in a shelter according to their stature."
Title: Ashok Kumar Goel and others v. Union of India and others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 186
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has dismissed an application seeking permission to travel abroad filed by a man after finding that he had suppressed a material fact regarding his citizenship–that he was a citizen of a foreign country, Republic of Vanuatu and was not an Indian citizen.
The Court also imposed costs of ₹50,000 to be deposited with the Poor Patients Welfare Fund, PGIMER, Chandigarh.
Title: Ravi Shankar and others v. State of Haryana
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 187
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has refused to quash an FIR alleging embezzlement, forgery and misappropriation of funds belonging to Dera Samadh charitable trust, holding that the allegations required a thorough investigation and cannot be adjudicated in proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Justice H.S. Grewal noted, "the complaint in question contains specific allegations against petitioner No.1, who was allegedly associated with the affairs of the Dera and was handling its financial matters. He is alleged to have taken advantage of the advanced age of late Swami Ganeshanand, manipulated trust documents, got execution of questionable sale deeds in favour of his wife, and misappropriated funds from various bank accounts connected with the institution, which cannot be said to be vague or bald allegations."
Title: Dishant Goel v. Union Of India & Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 188
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has set aside a preventive detention order passed under the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (PIT NDPS Act), on several grounds including that unexplained and inordinate delay at multiple stages vitiated the detention.
Justice Vinod S. Bhardwaj said, "Preventive detention would not be sustained upon a mere suspicion, administrative convenience or generalized apprehension. The constitutional guarantee under Articles 21 and 22 demands that the State demonstrate compelling necessity before depriving a person of liberty without trial. Where ordinary criminal law provides adequate remedies, the State cannot bypass judicial scrutiny and directly invoke preventive detention merely because the accused has secured bail or because prosecution under ordinary law may involve procedural rigours."
Title: Ashok Khemka v. Union of India and another
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 189
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has allowed a plea filed by retired IAS officer Ashok Khemka, holding that denial of empanelment to the rank of Additional Secretary/Secretary to the Government of India, despite similar relaxations granted to other officers, was discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Harsimran Singh Sethi and Justice Deepak Manchanda was dealing with a challenge to orders passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal rejecting Khemka's claim for empanelment on the ground that he did not fulfill the requirement of three years' central deputation at the level of Deputy Secretary or above.
Title: XXXX v. XXXXX
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 190
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has dismissed a transfer petition filed by a wife seeking transfer of a divorce case instituted by her husband from Amritsar to Hoshiarpur, holding that no sufficient ground or genuine hardship was made out to warrant such transfer.
Justice Nidhi Gupta said, "Moreover, from the material placed on record, including photographs annexed by respondent No.1, the applicant-wife appears to be professionally active. Prima facie, therefore, the plea that she is incapable of travelling to Amritsar does not inspire confidence."
Title: SWATI YADAV v. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 191
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has underscored that the right to health and medical care is an integral part of the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution, while calling for a humane and practical approach in matters of medical reimbursement for State employees and pensioners.
Justice Sandeep Moudgil said, "It is the opinion of this Court that the most equitable way forward is to breathe practical life into statutory policies by viewing them through the timeless prism of our ancient foundational values. Medical reimbursement policies ought to be interpreted in a manner that advances the cause of human welfare rather than defeats it through technicalities. The constitutional promise of a welfare State draws strength from the enduring civilisational ethos of this country, encapsulated in the ancient Sanskrit principle of “सव भवु सुखनः , सव सु िनरामयाः ”—may all be happy; may all be free from illness."
Title: ASHWANI KUMAR SHARMA v. RAMA RANI SHARMA AND OTHERS
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 192
The Punjab and Haryana High Court set aside a trial court order refusing to permit the examination of a material witness through video conferencing, emphasizing that procedural rules must be applied in a manner that advances access to justice rather than defeats it.
Justice Virinder Aggarwal said, "It is pertinent to note that the requisite technological infrastructure for conducting proceedings through video conferencing has been made available to all Courts with the object of facilitating access to justice and ensuring expeditious adjudication of cases. In furtherance of the said objective, this Court, in exercise of the powers conferred under Articles 225 and 227 of the Constitution of India, has framed the Video Conferencing Rules governing the conduct of judicial proceedings through electronic means."
Title: Sarwan Singh @ Samma Singh & Others v. Sukhraj Kaur & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 193
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that a suit filed by a dependent seeking compensation for the death of a family member is not barred by limitation under Article 82 of the Limitation Act, 1963, if the claim is based on an independent civil right and not under the Fatal Accidents Act.
Justice Nidhi Gupta said, "suit of the plaintiff is not governed by Article 82 of the Limitation Act; as the said provision is applicable to cases arising out of the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855. The distinction is that the Fatal Accidents Act applies only to accidental or wrongful deaths by "neglect or default". Whereas Intentional murder constitutes a distinct and separate cause of action. In the case of murder or intentional homicide, the Courts have consistently held that the claim is an independent right under ordinary civil or common law and would fall outside the scope of the Fatal Accidents Act. Thus, murder, would not be subject to the two-year limitation restriction of Article 82."
Title: ROHIT LALIT v. SOURABH CHABBRA
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 194
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has set aside a summoning order issued against a doctor in a criminal complaint alleging medical negligence, holding that the trial court acted perversely in proceeding without awaiting an expert opinion which it had itself directed to be obtained.
Justice Surya Pratap Singh noted, "it abundantly clear that there was a direction by the learned trial Court to seek expert report, to be submitted by the expert doctors of PGI Chandigarh, but without waiting for the above-mentioned report, the summoning order has been passed. In my opinion, the above-mentioned procedure adopted by the learned trial Court is in violation of its own direction, and therefore, perverse and contrary to the settled norms of judicial discipline."
Title: Narender Kumar v. State of Haryana & Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 195
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has reiterated that once the execution of a cheque is admitted, the statutory presumption under the Negotiable Instruments Act operates in favour of the complainant, and a mere plea that the cheque was issued as a blank security instrument is insufficient to rebut such presumption.
Justice Sumeet Goel said, "accused has miserably failed to raise any probable defence to rebut the presumption attached to the cheque in question being issued in discharge of legal liability under section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The petitioner - accused, except raising the factual grounds, miserably failed to point out any jurisdictional error or perversity in the findings returned by both the learned Courts below. No material illegality or miscarriage of justice has been pointed out which may justify interference in the limited revisional jurisdiction of this Court."
Title: Manjit Kaur v. State of Punjab and others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 196
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that where a deceased government employee is survived by only one widow and there are no eligible claimants from a pre-deceased spouse, the surviving widow is entitled to full (100%) family pension. The Court clarified that the State cannot retain any portion of the pension by misapplying provisions meant for cases involving multiple beneficiaries.
Title: JITENDER SINGH ALIAS JEETU v. STATE OF HARYANA THROUGH STATION HOUSE OFFICER, POLICE STATION BAHIN, DISTRICT PALWAL, HARYAN
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 197
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has refused regular bail to a man accused of participating in a fraud scheme wherein large sums of money were allegedly extracted from a litigant on the false pretext of securing favourable court orders through influence with High Court judges.
Justice Vinod S. Bhardwaj said, "This Court is also unable to ignore the specific allegations attributed to the petitioner regarding his active participation in collecting money and also of repeatedly assuring the complainant that favourable orders would be secured, through the influence, by the co-accused persons. The magnitude of the amount extracted from the complainant and the nature of the accusations levelled reflect a calculated and systematic design rather than an isolated or innocuous act."
Title: AMIT DEWAN v. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATON
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 198
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has granted bail to Amit Dewan, former Director (Finance) of Haryana Power Generation Corporation Limited (HPGCL), in connection with two CBI cases involving an alleged large-scale financial fraud concerning diversion of public funds. [2026 LiveLaw (PH) 198]
The Court allowed two connected petitions, noting that prolonged pre-trial incarceration cannot be justified in the absence of tangible evidence linking the accused to personal gain from the alleged fraud.
Title: X AND ANOTHER v. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 199
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has dismissed a plea filed by a couple seeking protection from alleged harassment by their relatives over their live-in relationship, holding that such protection cannot be granted in the absence of fulfillment of legally recognized conditions for live-in relationship. [2026 LiveLaw (PH) 196]
Justice Sandeep Moudgil noted that the petitioners were living together in live-in-relationship but the petitioner No.2 (boy) is yet to attain the marriageable age and will marry petitioner No.1 (girl) thereafter.
Title: Poonam @ Indira v. Prahlad Sharma and others
2026 LiveLaw (PH) 200.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that legal heirs of a deceased trustee cannot be impleaded to continue a suit filed by the trustee in a representative capacity, reiterating that the right to pursue such litigation vests only in surviving or duly appointed trustees.
Justice Vikas Bahl dismissed a revision petition challenging the trial court's refusal to substitute the legal heir of a deceased plaintiff.
Title: VIRENDER SINGH AND OTHERS v. JITENDER KUMAR IAS
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 201
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has dismissed a contempt petition with costs of ₹50,000, holding that the proceedings were a clear abuse of the judicial process and were pursued despite full knowledge that the underlying order had already been set aside in appeal [2026 LiveLaw (PH) 201].
Justice Sudeepti Sharma said, "the time has come when not only deterrent costs must be imposed upon the official respondents but also upon the frivolous litigants. If, in cases of genuine disobedience, costs can be imposed upon officials and recovered from their salaries, there is no reason why, in cases of manifest abuse of process such as the present one, the erring petitioners should not be saddled with exemplary costs payable to the affected officials."
Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Facebook's Removal Of Copyrighted Song From User's Page
Title: Maninderjeet Singh v. Facebook Meta Platform INC and others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 202
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has disposed of a petition challenging the removal of content from a Facebook page, holding that the platform acted in accordance with the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 after receiving a copyright complaint.
Title: CHANDIGARH GOLF CLUB v. CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION AND ANOTHER
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 203
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has directed the Chandigarh Golf Club to put in place a mechanism to comply with the Right to Information (RTI) Act within a month.
The Court dismissed its plea against a 2012 Central Information Commission (CIC) order that declared it a “public authority”.
Title: UNION OF INDIA v. USHA SINGLA AND OTHERS
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 204
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has upheld the liability of the Union of India to pay compensation to victims of a bomb blast in a passenger train, holding that such an incident falls within the definition of an “accident” under Section 124 of the Railways Act, 1989. [2026 LiveLaw (PH) 204]
Title: Surinder Kumar v. Union of India and others
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has quashed a circular issued by the Employees' Provident Fund Organisation (EPFO) mandating pro-rata computation of pension for employees opting for higher wages under the Employees' Pension Scheme, 1995 (EPS, 1995), holding it to be contrary to the statutory scheme and Supreme Court case in State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Arvind Kumar Srivastava, 2014.
Title: PRIYAWART AND OTHERS v. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 206
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has held that contractual employees engaged under the National Health Mission (NHM), Haryana, are entitled to the benefits of the 7th Pay Commission, observing that the State cannot arbitrarily deny parity once it has consciously adopted a structured pay framework and extended earlier pay commission benefits. [2026 LiveLaw (PH) 206].
Justice Sandeep Moudgil said, "The State, being a model employer, is expected to act with fairness, transparency and consistency. Administrative lethargy, inter-departmental indecision or shifting stands cannot become instruments for defeating the legitimate claims of employees who have served the public healthcare system of the State for years together. An employee cannot be left to wander through the corridors of bureaucracy in search of a right that is otherwise due to him. The State cannot be permitted to convert its own administrative shortcomings into a defence against a lawful claim, for that would amount to allowing the gatekeeper of justice to become its obstacle."
Title: ANURAG KHULLAR @ VISHAL v. U.T. Chandigarh
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 207
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has dismissed the anticipatory bail plea filed by an Advocate accused of cheating, forging a bail order to defraud complainants of over ₹10 lakh.
Justice Deepak Gupta said, “Merely because the petitioner is a practicing advocate cannot constitute a ground for grant of anticipatory bail. The status of a profession neither places a person above the law nor creates a separate standard for considering a prayer under Section 482 BNSS.”
Title: Vardhman Ranjan v. State of Haryana and Another
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 208
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has dismissed a batch of petitions challenging the preliminary examination result for the Haryana Civil Services (HCS) (Executive Branch) and allied services, reiterating that courts should exercise restraint in interfering with answer keys finalized by subject experts.
Jagmohan Bansal said, "the respondent-Commission in the present case has acted in a bona fide and transparent manner. The Commission has tried to resolve all the issues raised by candidates. If contention of petitioners is accepted, there would be never ending process of raising objections and it would be impossible for the Commission to finalize selection process. The Court cannot ignore the fact that exam in question was preliminary and final exam is going to take place in the end of this month."
Title: Gurwinder Singh @ Baba v. National Investigating Agency, Delhi
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 209
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has dismissed a regular bail plea filed by Gurwinder Singh @ Baba, an accused in a high-profile terror-related case investigated by the National Investigation Agency (NIA) concerning the murder of Shaurya Chakra awardee Comrade Balwinder Singh Sandhu
A Division Bench comprising Justice Archana Puri and Justice Ramesh Kumari said, "Suffice to consider the material aforesaid, which points finger to the inclination of the appellant towards terrorism. Considering the same and keeping in view the strict provisions as contained under Section 43- D(5) of UAP Act, there is reasonable ground for the Court, to believe and form an opinion that accusations against the appellant, are prima facie true."
Title: Ranbir Singh and others v. Haryana State through Collector, Fatehabad
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 210
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that the State cannot invoke the doctrine of adverse possession to claim ownership over private land, emphasizing that such a plea is incompatible with its role as a welfare State. [2026 LiveLaw (PH) 209]
It thus directed the Haryana Government to pay compensation for a private land used for a distributary without acquisition.
Justice Ramesh Kumari said, "the State being a 'welfare State', is expected to protect the life, liberty and property of its citizens. The State cannot be permitted to become a 'squatter' over the lawful possessory and ownership rights of its citizens. The State can neither be permitted to perfect its possessory rights into ownership title over the land to grab the property of its own citizens."
Title: Fatima Maqsood v. Indian Institute of Technology, Ropar
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 211
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has directed the Indian Institute of Technology (IIT), Ropar to allow a PhD scholar to resume her studies, holding that her resignation was not voluntary but tendered under compelling circumstances arising from alleged harassment by faculty members. [2026 LiveLaw (PH) 211]
Justice Kuldeep Tiwari said, "this Court has no hesitation to declare that the resignation was not voluntary, rather, it was under the compelling circumstances, as explained above. Therefore, the petitioner has all right to get her such resignation withdrawn. The request of the petitioner for withdrawal of her resignation, ought to have been accepted, which was neither considered, rather kept pending for about three months, propelling the petitioner to approach this Court."
Title: Jagwinder Singh @ Joginder Singh v. Ramandeep Khimareet Kaur and others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 212
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has dismissed a regular second appeal filed by a defendant challenging concurrent findings of two courts which had declared a Will as forged and decreed a suit for declaration, possession, and permanent injunction raising suspicion over making of will by 32-year-old man. [2026 LiveLaw (PH) 211]
Justice Vikram Aggarwal noted, "the age of Gursewak Singh at the time of execution of the Will was about 32 years. This in itself is a suspicious circumstance because normally, a 32 years old person would not make a will. Even if this fact is ignored, it was stated in the Will that defendant No.2 had been serving him. Defendant No.2 was about 04 years old at the time of execution of the alleged Will, having born on 19.08.1979. It is not understood as to what kind of service a four year old child must have been providing to Gursewak Singh, who, out of love and affection, executed the Will in favour of defendant No.2 Jagwinder Singh."