Nominal Index [Citations 80 - 100]Seema Saini v. State of Haryana 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 80 Chander Bhan v. State of Haryana & Anr 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 81Vinod Kumar @ Akhtar v. State of Punjab and another 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 82PARVEEN NAIN AND ORS. v. STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 83Baba Gurmeet Singh @ Maharaj Gurmeet Singh @ Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh v. Central Bureau...
Nominal Index [Citations 80 - 100]
Seema Saini v. State of Haryana 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 80
Chander Bhan v. State of Haryana & Anr 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 81
Vinod Kumar @ Akhtar v. State of Punjab and another 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 82
PARVEEN NAIN AND ORS. v. STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 83
Baba Gurmeet Singh @ Maharaj Gurmeet Singh @ Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh v. Central Bureau of Investigation 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 84
Shashi Kant Dwivedi v. State of Haryana 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 85
GUGAN RAM AND ANR. v. STATE OF HARYANA 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 86
MUNISH v. STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 87
Sonu Kumar v. Kulbir Singh 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 88
Anshul Garg v. State of Haryana 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 89
Gurdeep Singh Manchanda v. Enforcement Directorate 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 90
Jyoti Rani alias Jyoti Malhotra v. State of Haryana 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 91
Ankit Rawal V/s State of Haryana 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 92
State of Punjab v. SXXX 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 93
Brahmjeet Kaushal v/s Union of India & Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 94
Rattan Singh v. State of Haryana & Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 95
Bajrang Dass & Anr. v. State of Haryana & Anr. 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 96
Sudhir Kumar v. S. Ravtesh Inderjit Singh 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 97
Jyotsna Goel v. State of Haryana & Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 98
Gagandeep Singh v. National Investigation Agency; Shubham Sandhal v. National Investigation Agency 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 99
Aman Duddi v. Haryana Staff Selection Commission & Ors. [CWP-12842-2020 (O&M)],2026 LiveLaw (PH) 100
Reports
Title: Seema Saini v. State of Haryana
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 80
The Punjab and Haryana High Court on Thursday granted regular bail to a 39-year-old woman accused of conspiring to murder her husband and alleged paramour's wife , noting the inordinate delay in registration of the FIR, absence of postmortem examination, and lack of direct recovery linking her to the alleged crime.
Justice Sanjay Vashisth noted, "The FIR in the present case was got registered after a delay of period of more than 02 years i.e. on 20.09.2024, following the death of Pardeep Kumar (petitioner's husband). Whether an illicit relationship existed between the petitioner and Anil Kumar (alleged paramour) is an issue that should not be and even can not be decided at this stage, in the proceeding of the instant bail petition
Title: Chander Bhan v. State of Haryana & Anr
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 81
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has held that once an employee is granted retrospective or deemed promotion after being wrongfully denied advancement earlier, the employer cannot deny consequential monetary benefits by invoking the principle of “no work no pay.”]
The Court allowed the plea filed by a government employee challenging clauses in departmental orders that denied him arrears of salary despite granting him retrospective promotions.
Title: Vinod Kumar @ Akhtar v. State of Punjab and another
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 82
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has quashed criminal proceedings initiated against a man accused of making false allegations against a judicial officer, holding that the prosecution was initiated in violation of the mandatory procedural safeguards under Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).
Justice Sumeet Goel held that a Kalandra filed by a Station House Officer was not maintainable where the original complaint had been made to a superior police authority. While setting aside the proceedings, the Court also directed the Director General of Police, Punjab to conduct a statewide sensitisation programme for police officials to ensure strict compliance with the procedural requirements under Section 215 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).
Title: PARVEEN NAIN AND ORS. v. STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 83
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has quashed a cheating and forgery FIR arising out of a land agreement dispute, holding that the criminal case was lodged to escape civil liability and amounted to an abuse of the criminal process.
Justice H.S. Grewal said, "prima facie the allegations against the petitioners are not made out as the agreement to sell in question is a genuine document being a registered agreement. There is no allegation of cutting or overwriting, which could be apparent on the record and the allegation that “Rs.25,00,000/-” was mentioned instead of “Rs.1.25 crore” is totally absurd especially in the light of the fact that the complainant himself sold his land subsequently at a very low price i.e. Rs.35 lacs per acre."
Title: Baba Gurmeet Singh @ Maharaj Gurmeet Singh @ Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh v. Central Bureau of Investigation
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 84
The Punjab & Haryana High Court today acquitted the Dera Sacha Sauda Chief in Chatarpati murder case.
The Bench comprising Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Vikram Aggarwal pronounced the judgment on the appeals filed against the conviction.
In its decision, the Court upheld the conviction and life sentence of the other three accused — Kuldeep, Nirmal, and Krishan Lal. The Central Bureau of Investigation court had earlier convicted all of them and sentenced them to life imprisonment in this case.
Title: Shashi Kant Dwivedi v. State of Haryana
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 85
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has refused anticipatory bail to a man accused in a case where a person allegedly died after being humiliated by having half of his head forcibly shaved and being chased to the roof by the accused persons. The Court held that the nature of allegations and the stage of investigation warranted custodial interrogation.
Title: GUGAN RAM AND ANR. v. STATE OF HARYANA
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 86
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has acquitted a woman convicted for abetment of suicide of her step-daughter, holding that suspicion cannot substitute proof and that stray remarks, without intention to provoke suicide, do not amount to abetment under law.
The Court found that the only allegation against stud accused was that when the deceased complained about her father's conduct, she allegedly told her that if she felt ashamed, she could “take poison and die”.
Title: MUNISH v. STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 87
The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently set aside an order expelling an MBBS student from Pt. B.D. Sharma University of Health Sciences in connection with an alleged examination scam, holding that the punishment was imposed without complying with the principles of natural justice.
In doing so, the Court directed the university's Vice Chancellor to reconsider the matter after supplying the student with the recommendations of the Board of Discipline and granting him an opportunity of personal hearing.
Title: Sonu Kumar v. Kulbir Singh
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 88
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has directed that in all cheque bounce cases under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, trial courts must refer matters to mediation immediately after service of the accused, emphasising that such disputes are primarily compensatory and better resolved through negotiated settlement.
The Court said that every trial court and sessions court dealing with NI Act cases must proactively send such disputes for mediation unless the parties decline the process before the mediator.
Title: Anshul Garg v. State of Haryana
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 89
Observing that refusal of bail in serious offences must be balanced with the constitutional mandate of speedy trial, the Punjab and Haryana High Court held that where bail cannot be granted despite prolonged custody, courts must ensure expeditious conclusion of trial to prevent a “travesty of justice.”
The court was dealing with a case involving an accused who had allegedly supplied Extra Neutral Alcohol (ENA), which was allegedly used to manufacture the liquor that led to multiple deaths.
Title: Gurdeep Singh Manchanda v. Enforcement Directorate
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 90
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has suspended the sentence of a 73-year-old man convicted in a money laundering case under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA), noting that his appeal is unlikely to be heard soon and that he has already spent over a year in custody and directed to plant 20 saplings during monsoon session.
P&H High Court Denies Bail To YouTuber Jyoti Rani Accused Of Spying For Pakistan
Title: Jyoti Rani alias Jyoti Malhotra v. State of Haryana
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 91
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has refused bail to a YouTuber accused of espionage and sharing sensitive information with operatives linked to Pakistan intelligence agencies, holding that the allegations involve serious offences affecting the security and sovereignty of the State.
Justice Surya Partap Singh dismissed the bail plea filed by Jyoti Rani alias Jyoti Malhotra, observing that the prosecution had collected sufficient prima facie material indicating her involvement in anti-national activities.
Title: Ankit Rawal V/s State of Haryana
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 92
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has held that a litigant cannot later disown a statement made by his counsel in court by alleging lack of instructions, terming such an attempt a “procedural heresy” and an abuse of the judicial process.
Justice Sumeet Goel said, "The judicial process operates on the foundational presumption that statements made by a counsel at the Bar are made with full authority and reflect the true intent of the litigant concerned. This principle ensures that the Court can effectively adjudicate without being compelled to verify the internal communications between a lawyer and the client at every state of proceedings. By executing a Vaqalatnama, a litigant clothes the counsel engaged with express as well as implied authority to plead, act and appear in the best interest of the client."
Title: : State of Punjab v. SXXX
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 93
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that though the conviction for rape and murder of a minor under the POCSO Act and IPC was fully established, the case did not fall within the “rarest of rare” category, warranting the death penalty. The Court observed that a sentence of 50 years' actual imprisonment without remission would adequately balance the gravity of the offence with settled sentencing principles.
title: Brahmjeet Kaushal v/s Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 94
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has observed that there is no general rule that every offence under Section 498-A IPC due to its very nature must automatically translate into an offence involving moral turpitude for the purpose of civil consequences in employment, promotion or higher education.
Title: Rattan Singh v. State of Haryana & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 95
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that in cases of alleged theft of electricity under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, the assessing authority is duty-bound to confront the consumer with adverse material and grant an opportunity of hearing before passing an assessment order. The Court observed that any determination of civil liability, even under Section 135, must comply with principles of natural justice and cannot be made through a mechanical process.
Title: Bajrang Dass & Anr. v. State of Haryana & Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 96
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that prosecution under Sections 25(1-B)(a) and 29(B) of the Arms Act cannot be sustained in the absence of essential ingredients such as unlawful possession, delivery of arms, or requisite mens rea. The Court observed that the prosecution appeared to have been initiated in the backdrop of political rivalry as the petitioner is a political figure, being a member of a political party in opposition.
Title: Sudhir Kumar v. S. Ravtesh Inderjit Singh
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 97
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that levelling false allegations of non-compliance of court orders against a judicial officer amounts to gross abuse of the process of law and warrants imposition of exemplary costs. The Court observed that the allegation of disobedience of this Court's order against a sincere, competent and hard-working Judicial Officer demands indulgence of this Court.
Title: Jyotsna Goel v. State of Haryana & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 98
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that a habeas corpus petition in a child custody dispute is not maintainable when the minor is in the custody of a natural guardian, and no imminent threat to the child is demonstrated. The Court observed that custody with a natural guardian cannot ordinarily be termed illegal to invoke writ jurisdiction, in the absence of exceptional circumstances affecting the welfare of the child.
Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Bail To Persons Accused Of Human Trafficking Via 'Dunki Route'
Title: Gagandeep Singh v. National Investigation Agency; Shubham Sandhal v. National Investigation Agency
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 99
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that persons accused of operating an organised human trafficking racket facilitating illegal migration through the “Dunki Route” are not entitled to the benefit of regular bail, considering the gravity and international ramifications of the offence. The Court observed that such offences involve systematic exploitation, cross-border illegality, and large-scale financial gain.
Merit Must Prevail For Department Allocation In Combined Recruitment: Punjab & Haryana High Court
Title: Aman Duddi v. Haryana Staff Selection Commission & Ors. [CWP-12842-2020 (O&M)],
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 100
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that in combined recruitment processes, allocation of departments must be governed by inter se merit and cannot be done in a manner that allows lower-ranked candidates to secure more preferred postings. The Court observed that deviation from merit-based allocation violates the principles of equality and fairness under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.