LiveLaw Punjab & Haryana High Court Weekly Roundup: August 10 - August 16, 2026
Nominal Index [Citations 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 260 - 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 277]Union of India and others v. Smt. Shakuntla Devi and another 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 260 Gunjan Nehra and others v. State of Haryana and others 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 261Pardeep Kumar and others v. State of Punjab 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 262Karambir @ Karmu v. State of Haryana 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 263Rahul Sharma v. State of Haryana 2026...
Nominal Index [Citations 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 260 - 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 277]
Union of India and others v. Smt. Shakuntla Devi and another 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 260
Gunjan Nehra and others v. State of Haryana and others 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 261
Pardeep Kumar and others v. State of Punjab 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 262
Karambir @ Karmu v. State of Haryana 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 263
Rahul Sharma v. State of Haryana 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 264
Mrs. Surabhi @ Surbhi Duhan v. Directorate of Enforcement, through its Assistant Director, Chandigarh Zonal Office-1, Chandigarh 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 265
Harcharan Singh Bhullar @ H.S. Bhullar v. Central Bureau of Investigation: 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 266
JUGRAJ SINGH @ SONY v. STATE OF PUNJAB 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 267
Meena and another v. Union of India 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 268
Murder Reference No. 7 of 2023 (State of Haryana v. Pawan alias Moni) & CRA-D-1302-2023 (Pawan alias Moni v. State of Haryana) 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 269
Dhanwant Singh v. State of Punjab (CRA-S-546-SB-2005); [Victim] v. State of Punjab and another 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 270
Jagga Ram v. Neelam Rani and another 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 271
Sakattar Singh and others v. State of Punjab 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 272
XXXX v. XXXX 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 273
XXXX v. State of Punjab 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 274
Pradeep Singh v. Union of India and Others 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 275
Sanjay @ Fauji v. State of Haryana 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 276
Sandeep @ Kala v. State of Haryana 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 277
Reports
Title: Union of India and others v. Smt. Shakuntla Devi and another
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 260
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held the death of an Army personnel caused by cardiac arrest while he was on casual leave as attributable to military service, thereby granting special family pension to his widow.
A Division Bench of Justice Harsimran Singh Sethi and Justice Amarinder Singh Grewal dismissed petition filed by the Union of India challenging an order of the Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Chandigarh, which had granted special family pension in place of ordinary family pension to the widow.
Title: Gunjan Nehra and others v. State of Haryana and others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 261
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that in-service doctors need not have rendered two years' service in rural, remote or difficult areas before becoming eligible for admission to postgraduate medical courses against the 40% in-service quota in Haryana, so long as they execute a bond to serve such areas for five years after acquiring the degree. [2026 LL (PH) 262]
A Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Rohit Kapoor dismissed a writ petition filed by a group of MBBS doctors who had sought to confine the in-service quota only to candidates with prior rural service to their credit.
Pardeep Kumar and others v. State of Punjab
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 262
Setting aside a 2005 conviction in a culpable homicide case, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that the failure of the prosecution to explain grievous and sharp-edged injuries sustained by four of the accused in the same occurrence was not a mere omission but a deliberate suppression of material facts which struck at the root of its case. [2026 LL (PH) 264]
Justice H. S. Grewal allowed the appeal and acquitted the appellants of charges under Sections 148, 304 and 323 read with Section 149 IPC, holding that the evidence disclosed a free fight in which both sides participated and sustained injuries, and that the prosecution had failed to establish that the appellants were the sole aggressors.
Title: Karambir @ Karmu v. State of Haryana
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 263
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has granted regular bail to a man alleged to be a member of the Lawrence Bishnoi gang in a case of double murder, holding that the role ascribed to him, of arranging firearms and harbouring the assailants, is distinct and remote from the direct commission of the offence under Section 302 IPC.
The Court said that the case against him rests on the disclosure statement of a co-accused.
Justice Manisha Batra observed that the petitioner had already undergone about four years and four months of custody, with only 38 of 91 prosecution witnesses examined, and that further pre-trial incarceration would not serve the ends of justice.
Rahul Sharma v. State of Haryana
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 264
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has granted bail to a man accused of supplying a countrymade pistol allegedly used in a jewellery shop dacoity, observing that the disclosure statements of co-accused, recorded in police custody and not leading to any recovery or discovery of fact, prima facie attracted Section 23 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA).
Justice Surya Partap Singh allowed the petitioner's second bail plea, noting that he had been in custody for more than eight months, there was nothing on record to show his presence at the spot or participation in the conspiracy, and the co-accused had already been granted bail.
Title: Mrs. Surabhi @ Surbhi Duhan v. Directorate of Enforcement, through its Assistant Director, Chandigarh Zonal Office-1, Chandigarh
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 265
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that the first proviso to Section 45(1) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 exempts all women, as a class, from the rigours of the "twin conditions" for bail, and that any judicial attempt to exclude educated, professionally placed or socially influential women from the benefit of the proviso would amount to impermissible judicial legislation.
Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) makes all offenses under the act cognizable and non-bailable. It sets strict "twin conditions" that an accused must clear to secure bail.
Punjab & Haryana High Court Declines Ex-DIG IPS Bhullar's Second Bail Plea In CBI Trap Bribery Case
Case Title: Harcharan Singh Bhullar @ H.S. Bhullar v. Central Bureau of Investigation
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 266
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has declined regular bail to Harcharan Singh Bhullar, a suspended DIG of Ropar Range, Punjab Police, in a CBI case alleging demand of illegal gratification, holding that the absence of recovery from the accused himself is of little consequence where the co-accused is alleged to have accepted the bribe on his behalf. [2026 LiveLaw (PH) 267]
Title: JUGRAJ SINGH @ SONY v. STATE OF PUNJAB
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 267
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has granted regular bail to a man accused of writing pro-Khalistan slogans and hoisting a flag associated with the banned outfit “Sikh for Justice” on a government building, in a case registered under provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. [2026 LiveLaw (PH) 268]
Justice Vinod S. Bhardwaj and Justice Sukhvinder Kaur noted, "the role attributed to the appellant, the alleged recovery of empty paint cans as well as the period of custody undergone by him and noticing that the investigation in the present case has already been completed and also considering the fact that the co-accused have already been granted the concession of regular bail, we deem it appropriate to allow the present appeal and the appellant is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing requisite bail bond/surety bond..."
Title: Meena and another v. Union of India
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 268
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that a passenger who jumps from a train under a bona fide apprehension that it has caught fire cannot be said to have suffered a "self-inflicted injury" within the meaning of the proviso to Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989, as his conduct is an instinctive act of self-preservation rather than self-destruction. [2026 LiveLaw (PH) 269]
Justice Harkesh Manuja, allowing the appeal of the parents of the deceased and awarding statutory compensation of ₹8 lakh.
Title: Murder Reference No. 7 of 2023 (State of Haryana v. Pawan alias Moni) & CRA-D-1302-2023 (Pawan alias Moni v. State of Haryana)
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 269
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has commuted the death sentence awarded to a 21-year-old man convicted of the kidnapping, rape and murder of a seven-year-old girl in District Kaithal, holding that while the case does not warrant capital punishment, the convict must be kept out of circulation for a period long enough to remove any risk to other children. [2026 LiveLaw (PH) 270].
Framing the sentencing dilemma candidly, the Division Bench observed that this was one of those rare cases where the line separating the "rarest of rare" from the merely "rare" lay "on the razor's edge", and posed the question of how, when the death penalty is not imposed and executive policy permits early release, the courts are to protect children from offenders who kill after raping in order to destroy evidence.
Title: Dhanwant Singh v. State of Punjab (CRA-S-546-SB-2005); [Victim] v. State of Punjab and another
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 270
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has dismissed the appeal of Dhanwant Singh, the head of a dera in District Hoshiarpur, against his conviction under Section 376 IPC for the rape of a 20-year-old nursing student whose family had been his devotees for over fifteen years.
Justice Ramesh Kumari held that the sole testimony of a victim of sexual assault, where it inspires confidence, requires no corroboration. It thus rejected the defence contention that the prosecution case rested on an uncorroborated solitary statement
Title: Jagga Ram v. Neelam Rani and another
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 271
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has upheld an award of maintenance under Section 125 CrPC to a woman whose earlier marriage was alleged to be subsisting on the date of her marriage to the petitioner-husband, holding that such an objection, by itself, cannot defeat a claim for maintenance.
Dismissing the second husband's criminal revision, Justice Mandeep Pannu observed, "the parties had lived together for a considerable period as husband and wife and a child was also born from the said relationship. The petitioner seeks to defeat the claim of respondent No.1 primarily on the basis of the alleged subsistence of her earlier marriage. However, in view of the subsequent authoritative pronouncement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Smt. N. Usha Rani (supra), such an objection, by itself, cannot be treated as sufficient to non- suit a woman seeking maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C., particularly when the surrounding circumstances and the nature and duration of the relationship are taken into consideration."
P&H High Court Explains When Second Anticipatory Bail Plea Can Succeed
Title: Sakattar Singh and others v. State of Punjab
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 272
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has explained that although a second or successive anticipatory bail petition is maintainable in law, it can succeed only where the applicant demonstrates a substantial change in circumstances.
A mere superficial or ostensible change, including the subsequent creation of a document, would not suffice, Justice Sumeet Goel held.
The bench thus dismissed a second anticipatory bail petition filed by accused in rioting and unlawful assembly case.
Title: XXXX v. XXXX
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 273
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has suspended the sentence of a POCSO convict during the pendency of his appeal, holding that non-compliance with the mandatory reformative-assessment procedure under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 constitutes a relevant circumstance for grant of suspension. [2026 LiveLaw (PH) 273]
Justice Mandeep Pannu said, "Sections 19, 20 and 21 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, read with Rule 13 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Model Rules, 2016, would show that where a child in conflict with law is tried as an adult and is kept in a place of safety till attaining the age of twenty-one years, the Children's Court is under a statutory obligation, after the child attains the age of twenty-one years and before he completes the prescribed period of stay, to undertake a fresh evaluation of his reformative progress...assess whether the child...is capable of becoming a contributing member of society, and thereafter pass an appropriate order."
Case Title: XXXX v. State of Punjab
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 274
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that where a rape accused admits the factum of sexual intercourse, that admission does not relieve the prosecution of its obligation to establish the absence of consent, the burden on that issue resting throughout on the prosecution and never shifting to the accused.
Title: Pradeep Singh v. Union of India and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 275
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has dismissed a Public Interest Litigation seeking to stall the appointment of Advocate Pravindra Chauhan as a Judge of the High Court, holding that the petition was actuated by personal vendetta rather than genuine public interest, and imposed costs of ₹1,00,000 to be deposited with the Poor Patient Welfare Fund, PGIMER, Chandigarh.
Title: Sanjay @ Fauji v. State of Haryana
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 276
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has granted regular bail to Sanjay @ Fauji, the son-in-law of self-styled godman Rampal, in the case arising from the November 2014 violence at Satlok Ashram, Barwala, in which 111 police personnel were injured during the execution of arrest warrants issued by the High Court.
The Division Bench of Justice Rajesh Bhardwaj and Justice Deepak Manchanda noted that the appellant had undergone incarceration of four years and twenty-one days as on 12.08.2026, that the prosecution had by then examined all 49 material witnesses whose examination the Court had directed while declining his earlier bail plea, and that all co-accused including the main accused were already on bail. [2026 LiveLaw (PH) 280]
Title: Sandeep @ Kala v. State of Haryana
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 277
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has acquitted a rape convict, holding that the dying declaration on which the entire prosecution case rested did not inspire confidence, and that the failure of the investigating agency to have it recorded by a Judicial Magistrate despite adequate opportunity created a dent in the prosecution story. [2026 LiveLaw (PH) 278]
The Division Bench of Justice Rajesh Bhardwaj and Justice Deepak Manchanda observed that the omission "assumes greater significance in the facts of the present case particularly when prosecution itself seeks to base the conviction on dying declaration.
Other Developments
PALA RAM AND ANOTHER V/S AADHAR HOUSING FINANCE LIMITED AND ANOTHER
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has issued notice of motion and directed that borrowers shall not be dispossessed from their residential house till the next date of hearing, in a petition challenging recovery proceedings initiated under the SARFAESI Act, 2002 by a Non-Banking Financial Company in respect of a secured debt of less than ₹20 lakh.
Justice Jasgurpreet Singh Puri and Justice Sanjiv Berry said, "At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that respondent No. 1 is likely to take possession of their residential house today itself. We, therefore, direct that, till the next date of hearing, the petitioners shall not be dispossessed from their residential house."
Terming the absence of a Family Court in the Union Territory of Chandigarh "a serious issue", the Punjab and Haryana High Court has issued notice of motion on a PIL highlighting that no Family Court has been established at the District Courts, Chandigarh, despite the High Court having approved its establishment in 2017.
Chief Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Rohit Kapoor impleaded the Union of India, through the Secretary, Ministry of Law and Justice, as respondent No. 3 on the oral request of the parties, and directed the Registry to forward a copy of the order to the office of Additional Solicitor General of India Mr. Satya Pal Jain, who may obtain instructions in the meantime or file a reply if required.
Madhu Kishwar Moves Punjab & Haryana High Court To Quash FIR Over Social Media Post On PM Modi
Academic Madhu Purnima Kishwar has approached the Punjab and Haryana High Court seeking quashing of an FIR registered by the Chandigarh Police over a social media post concerning a video clip allegedly showing Prime Minister Narendra Modi receiving a face massage from a woman.
Justice Vikram Aggarwal directed the Chandigarh Administration to file an affidavit addressing the assertions made by Kishwar in her petition.