Nominal Index [Citations 350 - 380]R and Others v. I 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 350Sunder Singh v. State of Haryana 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 351Munisha v. State of Haryana and Others 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 352Shaurya Alloys Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Punjab and Another 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 353Parmod Kumar Yadav and Others v. State of Haryana 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 354Parteek Goel v. State of Haryana and Another 2026 LiveLaw...
Nominal Index [Citations 350 - 380]
R and Others v. I 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 350
Sunder Singh v. State of Haryana 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 351
Munisha v. State of Haryana and Others 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 352
Shaurya Alloys Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Punjab and Another 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 353
Parmod Kumar Yadav and Others v. State of Haryana 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 354
Parteek Goel v. State of Haryana and Another 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 355
Nikhil Saraf v. State of Punjab and Others 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 356
Avtar Singh v. M/s Des Raj & Co. 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 357
Amit Kumar v. State of Punjab and Others 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 358
Jaspreet Singh v. State of Punjab and Another 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 359
Neha Samar Ranga @ Neha Ranga v. State of Haryana 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 360
State of Haryana v. Hem Raj; Hem Raj v. State of Haryana 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 361
Morrison Loyal @ Morison @ Nishu v. State of Punjab 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 362
Jagtar Singh v. State of Punjab 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 363
Vandana Dhiman v. State of Punjab and Others 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 363
Sanjeev Arora v. ED 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 364
State of Punjab v. UOI 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 365
Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research (PGIMER), Chandigarh v. Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 366
Manjit Kaur v. State of Punjab and Others 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 367
State of Haryana and Others v. Sandeep Kumar and Others 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 368
Haryana 24 News Network Private Limited v. Union of India and Others 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 369
Ram Sarup v. State of Punjab and Others 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 370
A v. State of Punjab and Others 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 371
Anil Kumar and Others v. State of Haryana and Others 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 372
Deepak @ Deepu v. State of Haryana and Others 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 373
Baldev Singh Bajwa v. State of Punjab & Anr. 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 374
Janhit Sewa Charitable Trust (Regd.) v. Smt. Ashulika Sharma and Another 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 375
Vipan Jain v. State of Punjab through ADGP 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 376
Shobhana Devi and Another v. State of Haryana and Others 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 377
Ashok v. State of Haryana and Others 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 378
Harjeet Singh Puri v. Directorate of Enforcement 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 378
CBI v. State of Haryana & Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 379
State of Haryana v. Sunil Kumar and Others 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 380
Reports
Case Title : R and Others v. I
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 350
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has upheld a Single Judge's order directing a father and his family to hand over custody of a four-year-old boy to his mother, holding that a habeas corpus petition for custody of a minor is maintainable and that the mother's claim under the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act could not be displaced merely by the father's better financial position.
A Division Bench of Justice Suvir Sehgal and Justice Rajesh Gaur observed, "Financially stronger position of the father, or the investments made by him, cannot replace biological and emotional necessity of a mother's care for a four year old toddler."
Case Title: Sunder Singh v. State of Haryana
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 351
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has refused regular bail to a man accused of possessing over 109 kg of ganja, holding that the gravity of the recovery attracted the statutory bar under Section 37 of the NDPS Act and that prolonged custody alone could not dilute it.
Justice Sumeet Goel, dismissing the petitioner's fourth bail plea, observed that where the recovery falls within commercial quantity, "the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act are squarely attracted."
Case Title: Munisha v. State of Haryana and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 352
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that a candidate who attached an expired Backward Class-A (BCA) certificate with her application for a teaching post cannot be treated as eligible on the strength of a fresh certificate obtained after the last date for applying.
A Division Bench of Justice Harsimran Singh Sethi and Justice Minderjeet Yadav dismissed a Letters Patent Appeal against a Single Judge's order upholding the cancellation of the appellant's candidature for the post of Primary Teacher (PRT), Mewat Cadre, in the BCA category.
Case Title : Shaurya Alloys Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Punjab and Another, and connected cases
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 353
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has upheld the constitutional validity of Section 16(2)(c) of the CGST Act, 2017, which conditions a purchaser's Input Tax Credit (ITC) on the supplier actually paying the tax to the Government.
However, it held that the provision cannot be applied as a standalone provision to mechanically reverse a purchasing dealer's ITC merely because the supplier defaulted or its registration was later cancelled.
Case Title: Parmod Kumar Yadav and Others v. State of Haryana
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 354
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has set aside charges of culpable homicide not amounting to murder and attempt to commit culpable homicide framed against the accused in a 2024 factory fire in Dharuhera that killed several workers, holding that the material on record did not prima facie disclose the intention or knowledge required for graver offences.
Justice Virinder Aggarwal held that the trial court had erred in refusing to consider an expert report of the National Safety Council and CCTV footage merely because they had not been formally proved, observing that such an approach "amounts to an impermissible conflation of the standard applicable at the stage of trial with that governing consideration of charge."
Case Title: Parteek Goel v. State of Haryana and Another
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 355
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that a trial court is duty bound to decide a pending bail application where the High Court has granted no stay, and cannot keep adjourning it simply to await the outcome of a related transfer petition.
Justice Ramesh Kumari, allowing a petition under Section 528 of the BNSS, observed that in the absence of any interim stay, the trial court "is duty bound to decide the bail application." The Court strongly deprecated the trial court's practice of repeatedly adjourning the petitioner's bail plea only to await orders in the transfer petition.
Case Title: Nikhil Saraf v. State of Punjab and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 356
The Punjab and Haryana High Court on Monday directed the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to register a criminal case to probe allegations of corruption linked to the Punjab Chief Minister Bhagwant Mann's office.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 357
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that the power to recall witnesses and summon evidence under Section 348 of the BNSS (erstwhile Section 311 CrPC), though wide, cannot be invoked merely because an accused wants to bolster his defence after his evidence has been closed.
Justice Sumeet Goel, dismissing a petition by the accused in a cheque dishonour case, observed that the power must be exercised where the evidence sought is necessary for a just decision of the case, "and not merely because a party wishes to improve, supplement or reconstruct its case after the closure of evidence."
Case Title : Amit Kumar v. State of Punjab and others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 358
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has dismissed a habeas corpus petition filed by a father seeking custody of his minor son from the child's maternal grandparents and uncle, holding that the dispute involved contested facts and was already pending before a competent guardianship court.
Justice Sumeet Goel observed that "the mere fact that the petitioner is the biological father of the child in question cannot, by itself, justify exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court to direct immediate transfer of custody" in a habeas corpus petition, particularly when a petition under the Guardians and Wards Act was already pending.
Case Title : JASPREET SINGH V. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANR.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 359
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has quashed criminal proceedings under Section 309 IPC against a man who allegedly attempted to take his own life, holding that the statutory presumption of severe stress under Section 115 of the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017, remained unrebutted.
The Court also quashed the accompanying charges under Section 109 IPC and the Arms Act, finding that their essential ingredients were not disclosed.
P&H High Court Denies Bail To Woman Accused Of Embezzling Panchkula Municipal Corporation Funds
Title : Neha Samar Ranga @ Neha Ranga v. State of Haryana
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 360
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that economic offences, though usually not attended by physical violence, cannot for that reason be treated as less serious, and that bail in such cases must be approached with greater circumspection where the material shows a specific and direct link between the accused and the alleged transactions.
"The absence of physical violence, therefore, cannot by itself dilute the seriousness of the alleged criminality or the potential consequences flowing therefrom," observed Justice Sumeet Goel, while refusing regular bail to a woman accused in the alleged siphoning of funds from the Municipal Corporation, Panchkula.
Title : State of Haryana v. Hem Raj; Hem Raj v. State of Haryana
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 361
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has set aside the death sentence awarded to a man for the 2018 murder of a toddler in Hisar district and acquitted him, holding that the prosecution failed to produce legally admissible evidence connecting him to the crime beyond reasonable doubt.
A Division Bench of Justice Anoop Chitkara and Justice Harmeet Singh Deol considered the earliest documented account of the events, a Childline 1098 record made three days before the child's body was found, which named the person beating the child as "Mahabir" and not the accused, Hem Raj. Holding that this variance "goes to the root of the question of identity," the Court faulted both the investigation and the trial court for failing to address it.
Successive Bail Pleas Without Change In Circumstances Amount To 'Forum Shopping': P&H High Court
Title : Morrison Loyal @ Morison @ Nishu v. State of Punjab
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 362
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that a litigant who files successive anticipatory bail pleas for the same relief, without any material change in circumstances, engages in "a classic case of forum shopping". It said such a litigant "treats the halls of justice as a laboratory for speculative litigation."
Justice Sumeet Goel dismissed a second anticipatory bail petition by a man accused of circulating a woman's private photographs and videos on social media.
P&H High Court Denies Pre-Arrest Bail To Man Accused Of Smuggling Heroin Into Jail
Case Title: Jagtar Singh v. State of Punjab
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 363
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has refused anticipatory bail to a man accused of trying to smuggle heroin into Central Jail, Amritsar. The heroin was allegedly concealed inside cold cream boxes meant for his brother, an undertrial prisoner there. The Court held that the circumstances of the recovery and the need for custodial interrogation did not justify pre-arrest protection.
P&H High Court Rejects Woman's Plea Claiming Arrest Was Illegal As Grounds Were In Punjabi
Case Title : Vandana Dhiman v. State of Punjab and others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 363
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has dismissed a petition challenging an arrest on the ground that the written grounds of arrest were in Punjabi, a language the arrestee said she could not understand.
The Court held that this plea, raised for the first time later, could not establish a breach of Article 22(1) of the Constitution because the contemporaneous record showed no objection about the language.
High Court Dismisses Punjab Minister Sanjeev Arora's Bail Plea In PMLA Case
Title: Sanjeev Arora v. ED
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 364
The Punjab and Haryana High Court today dismissed the bail plea filed by AAP leader and Punjab's cabinet minister Sanjeev Arora, arrested in connection with a Rs 100-crore GST fraud linked to a company he previously headed.
Arora had approached the High Court challenging his arrest under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) and sought quashing of the arrest, the grounds of arrest, and the remand order, alleging violation of statutory safeguards and fundamental rights.
Title: State of Punjab v. UOI
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 365
The Punjab & Haryana High Court today allowed the Punjab Government's plea challenging the Centre's refusal of political clearance for a visit to France by Chief Minister Bhagwant Mann and other officials. The delegation planned to visit from October 15 to 21, 2026 to promote trade.
Justice Tribhuvan Dahiya after hearing the matter at length “allowed” the plea.
Case Title : Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research (PGIMER), Chandigarh v. Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 366
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has dismissed a writ petition filed by PGIMER, Chandigarh against a Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) order granting the Old Pension Scheme to three employees. The employees were engaged as work-charged Mortar Mates in 1994 and regularised only in 2016.
A Division Bench of Justice Harsimran Singh Sethi and Justice Minderjeet Yadav held that an employee appointed before the New Pension Scheme came into force on January 1, 2004 is entitled to the Old Pension Scheme even if regularisation came after that date. The Bench also rejected PGIMER's objections that the employees were paid from the contingency fund and that no sanctioned posts existed.
Case Title : Manjit Kaur vs. State of Punjab and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 367
A Division Bench of the Punjab And Haryana High Court comprising Justice Harsimran Singh Sethi and Justice Minderjeet Yadav held that an appointment obtained on the basis of a fake qualification from a non-existent institute is invalid and cannot be saved by long service, or subsequent acquisition of qualification.
Case Title : State of Haryana and others vs. Sandeep Kumar and others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 368
A Division Bench of the Punjab & Haryana High Court comprising Justice Harsimran Singh Sethi and Justice Minderjeet Yadav held that a Constable who has given in writing that he/she does not wish to seek promotion cannot be compelled to undergo the mandatory Lower School Course, as promotion is a personal choice.
Case Title : HARYANA 24 NEWS NETWORK PRIVATE LIMITED Versus UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 369
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has set aside a notice issued by the Superintendent of Police, Yamuna Nagar, under which Meta blocked a news company's Facebook page in India. The Court held that under the IT Rules, 2021, a police intimation to an intermediary can be issued only by an officer not below the rank of Deputy Inspector General of Police (DIG) who has been specially authorised for the purpose. It held that this power cannot be delegated to a lower-ranked officer.
Case Title : Ram Sarup v. State of Punjab and others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 370
A Division Bench of the Punjab & Haryana High Court comprising Justice Suvir Sehgal and Justice Deepinder Singh Nalwa held that a daily-wage workman whose termination violates Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is not automatically entitled to reinstatement, but instead to reasonable monetary compensation determined by factors such as length of service, nature of employment, and wages last drawn.
Case Title : A v. State of Punjab and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 371
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has granted a mother custody of her six-and-a-half-year-old daughter, who had been with the paternal family since October 2025. The Court observed that the custody of a child of tender age should ordinarily rest with the mother.
Justice Sumeet Goel said, “The custody of a minor child, who is of tender age, should ordinarily rest with the mother as it is a well settled principle that children of such a tender age stand in need of maternal affection, nurture and care, which are indispensible for their holistic development.”
Case Title: Anil Kumar and Others v. State of Haryana and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 372
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has dismissed two writ petitions by Legal Aid Defense Counsels (LADCs) in Haryana, challenging the termination of their contracts from September 30, 2026, although their engagements had been extended up to March 31, 2027.
Justice Nidhi Gupta held that the appointments were purely contractual and that the petitioners had “no vested right to demand continuation of Service.” The Court noted that both the appointment letter and the extension letter contained a clause allowing termination at any time on one month's notice, or payment of fee in lieu of notice.
Case Title : DEEPAK @ DEEPU VS STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 373
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has refused parole to a convict sentenced to imprisonment for the whole of his biological life without parole. The Court held that so long as this condition in the sentencing order stands, granting parole would run against the trial court's sentence.
A Division Bench of Justice Anoop Chitkara and Justice Harmeet Singh Deol dismissed the writ petition.
Case Title : Baldev Singh Bajwa v. State of Punjab & Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 374
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that an accused facing offences that are not punishable with imprisonment of ten years or more cannot be declared a “proclaimed offender” under Section 84(4) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. At most, such an accused can be declared a “proclaimed person” or “absconder.”
Justice Shalini Singh Nagpal set aside a Kharar Magistrate's order declaring the accused in a cheating and criminal breach of trust case a proclaimed offender.
Trusteeship Of Public Charitable Trust Prima Facie Cannot Be Bequeathed Through Will: P&H High Court
Case Title : Janhit Sewa Charitable Trust (Regd.), through its authorised trustee Shri Jagdish Somani v. Smt. Ashulika Sharma and another
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 375
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that a co-trustee of a public charitable trust, prima facie, cannot appoint a successor to her seat through her will.The Court said trusteeship is a personal office of confidence that does not pass by inheritance, and that management of a public trust cannot become a “hereditary or family entitlement.”
Case Title : VIPAN JAIN v. STATE OF PUNJAB THROUGH ADGP
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 376
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that parole, being a beneficial measure with reformative and humanitarian aims, cannot be refused on mere surmise that the convict's release might cause a local law-and-order disturbance.
A Division Bench of Justice Anoop Chitkara and Justice Harmeet Singh Deol granted eight weeks' parole to a convict serving life imprisonment for murder. He had sought release to care for his son, who has been certified as having 50% disability due to Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy (DMD).
Case Title : Shobhana Devi and another v. State of Haryana and others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 377
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has laid down a formula for deciding what a defaulting allottee must pay when a resumption order passed for non-payment of instalments is set aside. Under the formula, the allottee pays the unpaid percentage of the allotment price, applied to the current reserve price of a similar plot, rather than only the old dues with interest and penalty.
A Division Bench of Justice Vikas Bahl and Justice Divya Sharma set aside the resumption of a residential plot in Sector 19, Sirsa. The Bench held that the Haryana Shahari Vikas Pradhikaran (HSVP) authorities never considered whether resumption was being ordered as a last resort, even though the allottees repeatedly offered to clear all their dues.
Case Title : Ashok v. State of Haryana and others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 378
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has refused to quash, on the basis of a compromise, an FIR alleging sexual harassment of two minor girls. The Court held that offences under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 cannot ordinarily be treated as disputes of a “purely personal or private character”.
Justice Neerja K. Kalson dismissed the petition. The Court noted that charges had been framed and four prosecution witnesses had already been examined.
Case Title : Case Title: Harjeet Singh Puri v. Directorate of Enforcement
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 378
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that the requirement of obtaining a factual report from a public servant's superior officer under Section 223(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, cannot be dispensed with merely because sanction for prosecution has been granted.
The Court clarified that before taking cognizance of an Enforcement Directorate (ED) complaint under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, against a public servant, the Special Court must comply with the safeguards under Section 223(2) BNSS.
Case Title : CBI v. State Of Haryana & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 379
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that when a child in conflict with law is directed to be tried as an adult, the trial must be held by the Children's Court under Section 18(3) read with Section 1(4) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. The trial cannot be shifted to the Court of the Special Judge, CBI, merely because the CBI investigated the case.
Case Title : STATE OF HARYANA v. SUNIL KUMAR AND OTHERS THROUGH DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, KURUKSHETRA,
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 380
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has commuted the death sentences of four men convicted of murdering a doctor's wife during a robbery at their home in Kurukshetra in January 2023.
In place of the death sentence, the Court imposed imprisonment for a minimum of 30 years without remission. It held that the case did not fall within the “rarest of rare” category and that the possibility of the convicts' reformation could not be ruled out.