Driving Licence Sufficient To Treat Deceased As Skilled Heavy Vehicle Driver; No Interference With MACT Compensation: P&H High CourtTitle: NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD v. VIMAL KAUR AND ORSCitation: 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 01The Punjab and Haryana High Court has dismissed an appeal filed by an insurance company challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims...
Title: NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD v. VIMAL KAUR AND ORS
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 01
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has dismissed an appeal filed by an insurance company challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT), observing that the driving license was enough to prove that deceased was duly qualified to be treated as a skilled worker in the category of heavy vehicle driver.
Justice Sudeepti Sharma noted, "a perusal of the record shows that the driving licence of the deceased was produced... The said licence clearly reflects that the deceased was authorised to drive heavy and medium goods vehicles. Thus, the deceased was duly qualified to be treated as a skilled worker in the category of heavy vehicle driver.
Title: Ballet Singh and Ors v. State of Haryana and Ors
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 02
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has sought the Union Government's response on a plea filed by contractual Accounts Assistants working under the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (MGNREGA) seeking regularisation of their services against sanctioned posts.
The Court observed that MGNREGA is a flagship welfare programme of the Government of India and it's the effective implementation depends upon the dedicated services of personnel such as the petitioners who have been continuously working for long years against sanctioned posts.
Title: Rajeev Kumar Rana v. Serious Fraud Investigation Office
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 03
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has dismissed a second petition filed by an accused in the SFIO investigation into the Adarsh Group of Companies seeking regular bail, holding that while a successive bail application is not barred per se, however mere long incarceration cannot be the sole ground to allow the plea.
Justice Manisha Batra said, "Though, a second/successive regular bail application cannot be rejected solely on the ground of maintainability thereof, but for such petition to succeed, the petitioner is required to show some substantial change in circumstances. In the considered opinion of this Court, however, he has not been able to point out any such substantial change. Merely on the ground of his prolonged incarceration, he cannot be held entitled to seek benefit of bail in this petition especially in the circumstance when his previous petition had been dismissed by passing a detailed order and that order stands upheld by Hon'ble Apex Court."
Title: JOGINDER v. STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 04
Emphasising that Indian constitutionalism is rooted in the civilisational idea of Rajdharma, where governance must be guided by justice, fairness and compassion, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that a welfare State cannot, in good conscience or law, continue to extract uninterrupted service from workers while keeping them in perpetual insecurity.
Justice Sandeep Moudgil said, "There is, finally, a moral vocabulary that is not foreign to Indian constitutionalism and it runs parallel to our civilisational idea of Rajdharma that the ruler's foremost duty is protection and fairness to those who sustain the State's functioning. Our ancient texts repeatedly place upon the sovereign an obligation to act with nyaya (justice), anrishamsya (non-cruelty), and balanced governance and the idea of lokasangraha as discussed in the Bhagvad Gita's reminds public power that action must serve social stability and the common good, not merely administrative convenience."
Title: Avtar Singh v. State of Punjab
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 05
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has granted default bail to an accused in an alleged terrorism case registered under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, while condoning an extraordinary delay of 1415 days in filing the statutory appeal, primarily on the ground of parity with a co-accused who had earlier secured identical relief from the Supreme Court and the prolonged incarceration of the appellant for nearly seven years.
Title: VIRENDER ALIAS MOLAD v. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 06
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has declined to grant emergency parole to a life convict seeking temporary release on account of the death of his wife, holding that he did not fulfil the statutory requirement of completing five years of imprisonment after his latest offence, as mandated under the Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 2022.
However, taking a humanitarian view, the Court permitted the petitioner to attend the last rites and rituals of his deceased wife under police escort, by way of custody parole for limited hours.
Title: Kanwaljit Singh v. Shiromani Gurudwara Parbhandhak Committee
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 07
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has dismissed a batch of writ petitions filed by former employees of the Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee (SGPC) seeking release of retiral benefits, over missing Holy Saroops of Shri Guru Granth Sahib.
Justice Harpreet Singh Brar held that while writ petitions against SGPC are maintainable, the petitioners were not entitled to relief as their suspension/termination followed a duly conducted inquiry in substantial compliance with the SGPC Service Rules and principles of natural justice.
Title: Diksha Kalson v. State of Haryana and others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 08
While dismissing a review application filed by a Civil Judge (Junior Division) aspirant seeking re-evaluation of her answer sheet, the Punjab & Haryana High Court has reiterated that the power of review is extremely limited and cannot be invoked as a substitute for an appeal or for re-arguing a matter on merits.
Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sumeet Goel said, "it is indubitable that the power of review is not intended to re-litigate a cause that has been thoroughly argued and decided. Instead, its primary purpose is to correct manifest errors apparent on the face of the record, such as a clear mistake or error committed by the court, discovery of new and important matter or new evidence, or any other sufficient reason analogous to the preceding grounds."
Title: DIMPLE v. STATE OF PUNJAB
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 09
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has granted regular bail to a woman accused in a case relating to the death of 19-year-old Charis Goyal, observing that the Special Investigation Team (SIT) did not attribute any active role to her in the alleged murder and being a female she deserves a lenient view.
In March 2025, the body of nineteen-year-old girl, who had been missing for two days, was found in a canal near Yatri village, in Punjab's Maur Mandi, following a two-day search.
Title: Kiran (minor) v. Chandigarh Housing Board and others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 10
Emphasising that hyper-technical objections should not defeat welfare schemes meant for marginalised sections, the Punjab & Haryana High Court has directed the Chandigarh Administration to allot a small flat to a petitioner who was a minor at the time of filing the petition, in lieu of her deceased father who had already been found eligible under the Chandigarh Small Flats Scheme, 2006.
Justice Anupinder Singh Grewal and Justice Deepak Manchanda said, " while evaluating the applications of the marginalised sections of society for their rehabilitation in furtherance of their right to shelter, a more holistic and liberal view ought to be taken by the Constitutional Court, instead of a hyper-technical view which would defeat the very purpose of the scheme."
Title: Vijay Kumar Dhawan and others v. Gurpreet Singh
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 11
Quashing criminal proceedings against doctors accused of medical negligence leading to the death of a woman after childbirth, the Punjab & Haryana High Court has cautioned against subjecting medical professionals to criminal trials without credible expert scrutiny.
Justice Manisha Batra said, "The investigating officer and the private complainant could not always be supposed to have knowledge of medical science so as to determine whether the act of the accused medical professional amounts to rash or negligent act within the domain of criminal law under Section 304-A of IPC. The criminal process once initiated subjects the medical professional to serious embarrassment and sometimes harassment."
Title: Vishal Kaushik and another v. State of Haryana
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 12
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has refused to grant anticipatory bail to two officials of the Municipal Corporation, Faridabad, observing that allegations of large-scale corruption, forgery of public records and misappropriation of public funds demand a cautious approach at the pre-arrest stage.
Justice Sumeet Goel said, "The allegations against the petitioners pertain to offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 which by their very nature are serious and grave. Corruption by public servant is not merely an offence against an individual but constitutes and offence against the society at large eroding public confidence in the administration."
Title: MANDEEP SINGH AND ANOTHER V/S STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 13
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has expressed "glaring and alarming" concern over the registration of FIRs in Punjab on the basis of complaints received by the NRI Cell through emails.
Justice Alok Jain said, "there exist a compelling need to formulate and implement a Standard Operating Procedure and to raise the level of investigation in such cases, where complaints are received by the NRI Cell through e-mail, particularly with regard to the veracity of the allegations levelled and so as to determine whether any offence has been committed within the territorial jurisdiction of this country or not."
Title: BIR SINGH ALIAS BHIRA v. State OF HARYANA & ORS
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 14
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has strongly deprecated the Haryana Government's continued failure to regularise the services of a part-time sweeper who has been working continuously since 1986, observing that extracting labour for nearly four decades while denying security of service strikes at the heart of fairness, equity and social justice and they perform functions that are vital for orderly functioning of society.
Title: Ajay Kumar v. State of Punjab
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 15
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has granted interim bail for six weeks to an accused booked under the NDPS Act, taking into account the birth of his child and the need to care for his wife during the post-delivery period.
Justice Sanjay Vashisth said,"the petitioner's wife was earlier in a family way and now on 05.01.2026 has been blessed with a female child. Undoubtedly, at such stage, wife of the petitioner would require company of her best companion i.e. her husband. Undoubtedly, wife of the petitioner and the newly born child require the utmost attention to look after their health etc."
Title: Ram Kishan v. State of Haryana
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 16
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has refused to grant anticipatory bail to a court employee accused of colluding with police personnel and court staff to tamper with traffic challans in exchange for illegal gratification, holding that custodial interrogation was necessary for a fair and effective investigation.
Justice Sumeet Goel said, "As per the case set up by prosecution, the petitioner had made payment in the bank account of the co-accused for getting disposed of the traffic challans by way of editing the same. As per submissions made by learned State counsel, the investigation is still at a preliminary stage, and custodial interrogation of the present petitioner is necessary to unravel the truth."
Title: Honey Balu v. UOI
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 17
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking directions to Aaj Tak news channel and its journalist Anjana Om Kashyap to remove an allegedly derogatory video relating to Lord Maharishi Valmiki and to issue a public apology.
The plea took exception to a broadcast in which it was allegedly stated that “Bhagwan Maharishi Valmiki Ji was earlier a dacoit named Ratnakar who looted travellers”, contending that the statement hurt religious sentiments and defamed a revered figure.
Title: SHILPA JAIN (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH LRS. & ORS. v. INDERJEET JAIN AND ORS.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 18
Emphasising that the work of a housewife extends far beyond mere caretaking and includes a wide range of services that would command substantial remuneration if outsourced, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has enhanced compensation awarded in a motor accident claim, raising it from ₹58.22 lakh to ₹1.18 crore.
Title: BRIJ BHUSHAN v. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 19
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has quashed an order rejecting the claim of a Haryana Roadways employee who acquired 70% disability during service. It has directed the State to retain him on a supernumerary post with full service benefits till the age of superannuation.
Justice Sandeep Moudgil said, "an employee who has devoted the prime of his life to public service ought not to be met with rigidity at the moment of his greatest vulnerability. Disability suffered during service calls not for punitive action, but for empathy, accommodation, and institutional support. The State, as a model employer, must respond with humanity and fairness, lest service jurisprudence lose its moral and constitutional compass."
Title: State of Haryana v. Vinod @ Munna
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 20
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has set aside the conviction and death sentence awarded to Vinod alias Munna in a case involving the abduction, rape and murder of a five-year-old girl, on the ground of serious procedural lapses in recording the accused's statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Title: Title: Anu Aggarwal v. Sushant Aggarwal
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 21
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has dismissed a petition challenging the rejection of a wife's application for maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, holding that the petitioner had deliberately concealed her employment, income, and financial assets, and was therefore not entitled to claim maintenance.
Justice Alok Jain said, "Section 125 Cr.P.C. has been enacted with a specific purpose to protect women and children and to prevent vagrancy and destitution among them. It provides speedy remedy to the destituted and helpless women to establish their claim, it was incumbent upon the petitioner to prove that she is unable to maintain herself and her child but in the present case, the petitioner has concealed her employment and claimed his husband is earning handsome amount, her conduct in suppressing relevant information from the Court and the fact that she is not only qualified but is capable of earning good money."
Title: State of Punjab v. Baldev Singh
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 22
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has dismissed an application filed by the Punjab Government seeking condonation of a 597-day delay in filing an appeal against a judgment passed by the Trial Court, holding that the delay was inordinate, unexplained, and devoid of bona fides.
Justice Sumeet Goel said, "The applicant-State has failed to provide any concrete explanation or documentary proof to demonstrate its genuine efforts in pursuing the matter within the prescribed time limit. No cause, much less sufficient cause as required in law, has been shown to justify or condone such a significant delay. The delay is both inordinate and inexplicable."
Punjab & Haryana High Court Stays Probe Against Journalists Over Posts On Punjab CM's Helicopter
Title: Manik Goyal v. State of Punjab & Anr
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 23
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has stayed till next date, further investigation against law student, journalists and media professionals for publishing a news story relating to helicopter movements allegedly linked to Punjab Chief Minister Bhagwant Singh Mann.
Journalistic Freedom Can't Be Curtailed Because Public Officials Feel Offended: P&H High Court
Title: Manik Goyal v. State of Punjab & Anr
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 24
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has said that subjective feelings of a public officer cannot become the benchmark for assessing the legality of State action.
Justice Vinod S. Bhardwaj said, “Merely because a person holding a public office feels offended may not be the yardstick on which State action is to be measured. It would also not be influenced by the projections sought to be portrayed by State.”
Title: SHARDA AND ANOTHER v. NAGENDER SHARMA AND ANOTHER
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 25
Holding that a bachelor earning member of a family has a moral, social and filial obligation to support his aged parents and would not spend half of his income solely on himself, the Punjab and Haryana High Court enhanced compensation awarded in a motor accident claim, reducing the deduction towards personal expenses to one-third instead of 50%.
High Court Dismisses Plea Challenging Appointment Of Haryana AG
Title: Pradeep Singh Advocate v. State of Haryana and others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 26
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has dismissed a petition challenging the appointment of the Advocate General of Haryana, holding that once the constitutional eligibility under Article 165 of the Constitution is satisfied, allegations of impropriety or desirability are beyond the limited scope of quo warranto jurisdiction.
The Court noted that a bare perusal of Article 165 of the Constitution reveals that a person who is qualified to be appointed as a Judge of a High Court is eligible to be appointed as Advocate General of the State concerned.
Title: Naresh Kumar v. State of Haryana and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 27
Holding that the disciplinary authorities acted in a casual and mechanical manner by punishing a police constable despite his exoneration in a departmental inquiry, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has set aside the punishment of forfeiture of five increments with permanent effect and imposed costs of ₹1,10,000 on the State.
Justice Jagmohan Bansal said, "It seems to be a case of casual adjudication of departmental proceedings because alleged delinquent was a mere Constable. The Disciplinary Authority casually awarded major penalty of forfeiture of five increments and higher authorities upheld order of disciplinary authority. It is a case of casualty and miscarriage of justice on the part of departmental authorities."
Title: Roop Bansal v. State of Haryana & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 28
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has permitted real estate developer Roop Bansal to withdraw his petition challenging the FIR lodged against him for conspiring to bribe a Trial Court judge.
Bansal is booked under provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act and for criminal conspiracy under Section 120B IPC.
Title: The Hind Samachar Limited & another v. State of Punjab & others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 29
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has directed the proprietors of Punjab Kesari, other newspapers to approach the National Green Tribunal (NGT) for redressal of their grievance against coercive action taken by the Punjab Pollution Control Board (PPCB), including closure and disconnection of electricity to printing press and hotels of its owners.
Title: XXXX v. XXXX
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 30
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has dismissed a regular bail petition filed by an accused booked under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act) and the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, observing "a lenient approach is wholly unwarranted."
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has dismissed a regular bail petition filed by an accused booked under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act) and the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, observing "a lenient approach is wholly unwarranted."
Title: XXXX v. XXXX
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 31
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has dismissed a regular bail petition filed by an accused booked under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act) and the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, observing "a lenient approach is wholly unwarranted."
Justice Neerja K. Kalson said, "The judiciary bears a solemn duty to act as a guardian for those who are incapable to protect themselves. When the innocence of a child is violated, the law must act not merely as a punitive instrument, but as an unwavering shield. As it is often said, “The soul of a society is judged by how it treats its children, for they are the living messages we send to a time we will not see.” In this context, a lenient approach is wholly unwarranted."
Title: NOOR MOHAMMAD v. STATE OF U.T CHANDIGARH
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 32
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has dismissed a petition seeking anticipatory bail filed by a 62-years-old booked for allegedly supplying 50-kg-beef in violation of statutory prohibitions, holding that custodial interrogation was necessary to uncover the larger network involved in the illegal trade.
Justice Aaradhna Sawhney rejected the plea taken by the petitioner was misled by the sellers, who had allegedly disclosed him that the meat was not Beef is clever ploy and an afterthought, which does not deserve to be taken note of.
Title: Mohd. Ashraf and Another v. Sadiq (Since Deceased) through his LRs and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 33
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has said that a widow is competent to alienate non-ancestral property inherited from her husband without the consent of collaterals, as any customary restriction to the contrary is constitutionally impermissible.
Justice Virinder Aggarwal said, “Consequently, any such fetter on a woman's right to deal with her independently inherited property must be held to be constitutionally impermissible, legally unsustainable, and devoid of binding effect."
Title: Teja Singh & Anr v. State of Punjab
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 34
The Punjab and Haryana High Court acquitted a man after 22 years, who was sentenced to life for allegedly setting his pregnant wife on fire, holding that it was highly unbelievable that a "trivial dispute" over separate residence could lead him to murder his wife adding that the alleged motive was extremely weak.
The Court set aside the judgment passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, in 2004, which had convicted Teja Singh under Section 302 (murder) IPC and his brother Baljit Singh @ Goga also for murder along with common intention. The appeal against Baljit Singh stood abated due to his death in 2015.
Title: United India Insurance Company Limited v. Narinder Pal Singh and others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 35
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has enhanced compensation awarded to a motor accident victim from ₹52 lakh to ₹9.16 crore, holding that the claimant, who has suffered 100% permanent functional disability and his future medical treatment cannot be ignored.
The Court also granted ₹6 crore towards advanced medical treatment in the United States of America.
Title: Sarbjit Kaur and another v. State of Punjab and others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 36
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has set aside an order denying Assisted Reproductive Technology (ART) services to a married couple who lost their only son in 2024, holding that the ART Act, 2021 does not prescribe an age limit for a commissioning couple and expressly permits the use of donor oocytes.
Allowing the writ petition, the Court quashed the order dated 06 February 2025 passed by the State Appellate Authority, which had rejected the couple's request for IVF on grounds of age, menopause, medical risk and apprehension of sex determination.
Title: COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION V/S UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 37
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has taken suo motu cognizance of the reported death of nearly 50 cattle at a gaushala in Chandigarh's Raipur Kalan, following media reports highlighting alleged cruelty, neglect and illegal disposal of carcasses.
Chief Justice Sheel Nagu ans Justice Sanjiv Berry asked the UT administration to file a response.
Title: SURESH KUMAR v. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 38
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has directed the Haryana Government to reimburse the remaining medical expenses of a government employee incurred for the emergency treatment of his wife in a non-empanelled private hospital, holding that denial of reimbursement without reasons is arbitrary and violative of the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution.
ED Can Arrest Even If FIRs Are Added To ECIR Later: Punjab & Haryana High Court
Title: Arvind Walia v. Directorate of Enforcement and another
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 39
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has dismissed two pleas filed by promoters-directors of Ramprastha Promoters & Developers Pvt. Ltd., challenging their arrest, remand, and proceedings initiated by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA).
Justice Tribhuvan Dahiya said merely because two FIRs were made part of the ECIR later, by way of addendum, it would not vitiate the petitioners' arrest prior thereto.
Title: SANDEEP SINGH ALIAS SEEPA v. STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 40
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has set aside an order granting regular bail to a juvenile accused in a murder case, holding that bail under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Act, 2015 can be denied where release exposes the child to association with known criminals, moral, physical or psychological danger, or defeats the ends of justice.
Title: XXX v. XXX
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 41
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has appreciated the efforts of a Session Judge in avoiding needless waste of paper by ensuring that judicial orders passed in a case were printed on the same sheet, wherever possible.
Justice Neerja K. Kalson said, "Before parting with this order, this Court appreciates the fact that as is evident from the orders placed on record, every precaution has been taken by the officer to ensure the optimum utilization of papers. The orders have been printed on the same sheet wherever possible, which every court should do, thereby setting a commendable example in avoiding the needless waste of paper – a precious resource demands prudent consideration in judicial proceedings."
Title: Akashdeep Kaur and others v. State of Punjab and others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 42
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has dismissed a plea seeking cancellation of the entire recruitment process conducted pursuant to Advertisement Haryana Senior Assistant-cum-Inspector, holding that mere similarity in incorrect answers, regional concentration of successful candidates, or post-result dissatisfaction of unsuccessful candidates cannot justify quashing a recruitment process in the absence of cogent evidence of systemic fraud.
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."
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.