LiveLaw Punjab & Haryana High Court Weekly Round-Up: July 06 - July 12, 2026

Update: 2026-07-16 03:30 GMT
Click the Play button to listen to article
story

Nominal Index [Citations: 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 219-228]ATMA SINGH v.STATE OF PUNJAB 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 219Shiv Kumar and another v. State of Haryana 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 220Kusum Rani and another v. State of Haryana and others 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 221Veer Sain v. State of Haryana 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 222 SANDEEP KUMAR @ SANDEEP PATHAK v. STATE OF PUNJAB 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 223 Vivo India Private Limited...

Your free access to Live Law has expired
Please Subscribe for unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments, Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.

Nominal Index [Citations: 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 219-228]

ATMA SINGH v.STATE OF PUNJAB 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 219

Shiv Kumar and another v. State of Haryana 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 220

Kusum Rani and another v. State of Haryana and others 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 221

Veer Sain v. State of Haryana 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 222

 SANDEEP KUMAR @ SANDEEP PATHAK v. STATE OF PUNJAB 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 223

 Vivo India Private Limited v. Serious Fraud Investigation Office, Ministry of Corporate Affairs, UOI 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 224

Angrej Brar v. State of Haryana, Department of Personnel and Training through its Secretary and another 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 225

Jagtar Singh Hawara v. Union Territory, Chandigarh Administration and others 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 226

Lehna Singh and another v. State of Punjab and another 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 227

Kannect Engineers Pvt. Ltd. v. Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. and Others 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 228

Reports

P&H High Court Dismisses Plea Seeking SIT Probe After Woman Alleged To Be Murdered Found Alive

Title: ATMA SINGH v.STATE OF PUNJAB

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 219

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has dismissed a petition seeking directions for a status report and constitution of a Special Investigation Team (SIT) in connection with the alleged missing and suspected murder of a woman, Devinder Kaur, after finding that she is alive and residing in Canada. 

Justice Surya Partap Singh said, "this plea of petitioner is not sustainable at all, that there has been any laxity or deliberate attempt on the part of the respondents not to prosecute 'Balbir Singh' for the murder of 'Devinder Kaur'. Since 'Devinder Kaur' is still alive, the question of prosecution of anybody for the murder of 'Devinder Kaur' does not arise at all."

25 Yrs After Conviction, P&H High Court Declares Rape Convict Was 'Juvenile', Modifies Sentence

Title: Shiv Kumar and another v. State of Haryana

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 220

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that an appellant convicted in 2001 for kidnapping and rape was a juvenile on the date of commission of the offence in 1999, and accordingly modified his sentence to the period already undergone in custody.

Justice Subhash Mehla said that he "finds no reason to disbelieve the enquiry report submitted by learned District & Sessions Judge, Yamuna Nagar. The said report is based upon contemporaneous school record and no material has been placed on record to rebut the same. Even learned State counsel has not disputed the claim of juvenility raised by appellant No.1."

Punjab & Haryana High Court Hands NDPS Probe To CBI After Finding Police Version On Accused's Custody Doubtful

Title: Kusum Rani and another v. State of Haryana and others

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 221

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has directed the CBI to conduct further investigation into an FIR registered under Section 22(C) of the NDPS Act, after finding that the police version regarding the detention and release of the accused was contradicted by the very person to whom custody was allegedly handed over. [

The Court quashed the charge-framing order and directed CBI investigation after finding that the person to whom the accused was allegedly handed over on release categorically denied the police version, casting doubt on the credibility of the investigation.

Anticipatory Bail Denied To Ex-Police Officer In Corruption Case: P&H High Court Flags Risk To Investigation

Title: Veer Sain v. State of Haryana

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 222

The Punjab & Haryana High Court has refused anticipatory bail to a former police officer accused of demanding illegal gratification, observing that economic offences and corruption “erode public trust” and require courts to exercise caution while extending pre-arrest protection. 

Dismissing the plea, Justice Sumeet Goel held that given the nature of the allegations, grant of anticipatory bail at this stage would impede the ongoing investigation.

P&H High Court Grants Bail In Official Secrets Act Case, Says 'Y+ Security' Communication Prima Facie Not Secret

Title: SANDEEP KUMAR @ SANDEEP PATHAK v. STATE OF PUNJAB

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 223

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has granted regular bail to a man booked under the Official Secrets Act, observing that a communication regarding grant of 'Y+' security to him does not prima facie fall within the ambit of “official secrets”. 

Justice Virinder Aggarwal said, "Upon a prima facie consideration of the material available on record, this Court finds that it is not evident, at this stage, as to how the communication directing the extension of 'Y+' security to the petitioner would fall within the ambit of an "official secret" so as to attract the rigours of the Official Secrets Act, 1923."Title: SANDEEP KUMAR @ SANDEEP PATHAK v. STATE OF PUNJAB

Pre-Cognizance Hearing Of Accused U/S 223 BNSS Not Applicable To SFIO Proceedings Under Companies Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court

Title: Vivo India Private Limited v. Serious Fraud Investigation Office, Ministry of Corporate Affairs,UOI

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 224

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that the mandatory pre-cognizance hearing of accused, contemplated under the first proviso to Section 223 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), is not available to persons proposed to be arrayed as accused in prosecutions instituted by the Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO) under the Companies Act, 2013. 

Justice Subhas Mehla noted, "...prosecution complaints instituted by the SFIO pursuant to investigation under Section 212 of the Act, 2013 are not governed by the proviso to Section 223 of the BNSS, and the proposed accused have no vested right to claim a pre-cognizance hearing before the Special Court."

Lack Of Tech Knowledge No Excuse For Incomplete Online Application: Punjab & Haryana High Court Rejects ADA Aspirant's Plea

Title: Angrej Brar v. State of Haryana, Department of Personnel and Training through its Secretary and another

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 225

Rejecting the plea of lack of computer knowledge, the Court dismissed a writ petition filed by a candidate seeking issuance of an admit card for the Haryana Assistant District Attorney (ADA) who submitted an "incomplete form."

Justice Nidhi Gupta said, "Contention of the petitioner that his computer related knowledge is still not vast, is baseless as computers are omnipresent and essential for survival in today's age. The same constitutes no ground for issuance of direction as prayed for."

High Court Directs Expeditious Decision On Parole Plea Of Former Punjab CM Beant Singh Assassination Convict

Title: Jagtar Singh Hawara v. Union Territory, Chandigarh Administration and others

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 226

The Punjab & Haryana High Court has directed an expeditious decision on the parole application filed by Jagtar Singh Hawara, who is serving a life sentence in Delhi's Mandoli Jail in the assassination case of former Punjab Chief Minister Beant Singh.

A division bench of Justice Vinod S. Bhardwaj and Justice Sukhvinder Kaur directed,

"i.the Superintendent, Central Jail No.15, Mandoli, shall re-direct / forward the request of the petitioner for grant of parole to the Home Secretary, Union Territory, Chandigarh within a period of one week from today;

Second Anticipatory Bail Plea Not Maintainable After Denial Of Relief By Supreme Court; Compromise No Ground: P&H High Court

Title: Lehna Singh and another v. State of Punjab and another

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 227

The Punjab & Haryana High Court has held that a second anticipatory bail petition is not maintainable once the earlier plea has been rejected up to the Supreme Court, observing that a subsequent compromise between parties cannot override judicial directions.

Justice Sumeet Goel said, “the present petition is wholly misconceived and not maintainable. The earlier petition preferred by petitioners seeking anticipatory bail was dismissed by this Court by a reasoned and detailed order dated 24.02.2026 and 21.04.2026 respectively. Thereafter, the petitioner No.2 has posed challenge thereto before the Hon'ble Supreme Court but also did not succeed. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, while declining interference, granted a limited indulgence to the petitioner No.2 by observing that in case he surrendered within two weeks and moved an application for grant of regular bail, the same be considered on merits."

High Court Sets Aside Punjab Power Corporation's 'Arbitrary' Tender Award For Quality Meters

Title: Kannect Engineers Pvt. Ltd. v. Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. and Others

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 228

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has set aside the Punjab State Power Corporation Limited's (PSPCL) award of a tender for 1,000 Class-A power quality meters to a private bidder, holding that the corporation acted "most arbitrarily" by placing the purchase order without the bidder having furnished the mandatory type test certificates required under the tender conditions — several of which were submitted only after the order was placed, and some of which remained pending even at the time of the hearing.

Other Development

High Court Issues Notice To ED On Punjab Minister Sanjeev Arora's Bail Plea In Money Laundering Case

Title: Sanjeev Arora v. ED

The Punjab and Haryana High Court today sought response from Enforcement Directorate (ED) on a 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 earlier 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.

Gurugram Court Working From Guest House: High Court Raps Haryana Govt Over Delay In 'Tower of Justice' Project

Title: COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION v. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

Taking serious note of the continued delay in completion of the Gurugram district judiciary's new court complex, the Punjab and Haryana High Court today observed that the functionality of courts cannot be jeopardised due to lapses on the part of State authorities, especially when judicial work is presently being carried out from a guest house following a fire incident.

'Tower of Justice', spread across seven acres, is stated as the largest judicial complex in north India by Haryana government in 2017.

PIL In Punjab & Haryana High Court Seeks Restoration Of Diljit Dosanjh Starrer 'Satluj', Challenges Takedown Of Film

A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) has been filed before the Punjab & Haryana High Court seeking restoration of singer-actor Diljit Dosanjh's film Satluj, which was recently taken down. The plea challenges the removal of the movie, alleging it was arbitrary and unjustified, and urges the Court to intervene to ensure its availability to the public.

Satluj is based on the story of the prominent Sikh human rights activist Jaswant Singh Khalra and alleged extra-judicial killing by Punjab Police during 1995.

State Assures Compliance Of Norms, High Court Permits Shifting Of Gurugram District Court To 'Tower Of Justice

The Punjab and Haryana High Court on Wednesday directed the Haryana state authorities to shift the Gurugram District Courts to the newly constructed Judicial Courts Complex (Tower of Justice) forthwith, holding that any further delay would prejudice the public interest as judicial work has been severely disrupted following the recent fire at the existing court complex.

The Court recorded the statement of the Engineer-in-Chief (Buildings)-cum-HOD, Haryana, PWD (B&R), that the building was complete in all respects and complied with all statutory norms and "there is no deviation from the norms in the complex prescribed for EC, and that the building complies with all statutory norms for EC."

Punjab & Haryana High Court Stays Trial Against Cop Accused Of Selling Drugs In Jail

Title: JASKARAN SINGH VS STATE OF PUNJAB

The Punjab & Haryana High Court has stayed trial court proceedings against a Constable posted on security duty at Central Jail, Bathinda, who has been chargesheeted under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) and Section 52 of the Prisons Act, 1894 for allegedly selling drugs in prison.

Justice Ramesh Chander Dimri issued notice of motion on the cop's petition seeking quashing of the FIR, the final report, and the consequential orders.

High Court Bars Further Allotment Of Flats In Oberoi's ₹8,000 Crore Gurugram Project Till Haryana Decides Challenge To Licence

Case Title: Advance India Projects Limited v. Director, Department of Town Country Planning Haryana and Others

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has restrained the IREO Group of companies and its assignee Oberoi Realty from making any further allotments or creating third-party rights in its mega residential-cum-commercial project 'Three Sixty North' in Sector-58, Gurugram, until the Director, Town and Country Planning, Haryana decides a pending representation seeking cancellation of the licence granted for the project.

Justice Jasgurpreet Singh Puri and Justice Sanjiv Berry said, "Considering the magnitude of the project and the fact that the rights of various allottees/prospective allottees are involved, it is further directed that till the the complaint/ Representation...is decided, no further allotment shall be made by the respondent Nos.3 to 14 to any further prospective allotee nor shall any further third-party rights be created by them."

Tags:    

Similar News