Nominal Index [Citations 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 290 - 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 301]

Philips and another v. Union of India 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 290

Amarjit Kaur and others v. Harbhajan Kaur @ Bhajan Kaur through her LR 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 291

RXXX v. State of Punjab 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 292

Nishan Singh v. State of Punjab 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 293

Jagjeet Singh v State of Punjab 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 294

 Bala v UT Chandigarh 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 295

Tripti Srivastava and another v. Yogesh Singla 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 296

[Name withheld] v. State of Haryana and another 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 297

Ranjit Kaur v. Union of India and others 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 298

 X v. State of Haryana and others 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 299

Satpal Singh v. State of Punjab 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 300

Shamsher Singh and another v. State of Haryana 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 301

REPORTS

Railway Inquiry Into 'Untoward Incident' Must Verify Travel Through Independent Sources, Not Stop At Non-Recovery Of Ticket: P&H High Court

Case Title: Philips and another v. Union of India

2026 LiveLaw (PH) 290

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has awarded ₹8 lakh compensation to the parents of a man who died after allegedly falling from a running train, holding that non-recovery of his ticket could not by itself defeat their claim where the Railway Administration made no genuine effort to verify his travel status through independent sources.

Scribe Can Also Be Attesting Witness To Will, But Must Intend To Attest It: Punjab & Haryana High Court

Title: Amarjit Kaur and others v. Harbhajan Kaur @ Bhajan Kaur through her LR

2026 LiveLaw (PH) 291

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that there is no legal requirement disqualifying a scribe from also being an attesting witness to a Will, so long as the intention to attest, the animus attestandi, is established. [2026 LiveLaw (PH) 291]

Justice Vikas Suri said that "there is no bar for person to be a scribe as well as an attesting witness," clarifying that what the law forbids is "treating" a scribe as an attesting witness, not a person who is genuinely both.

Deceased 'Found Hanging' Not Enough To Prove Suicide: P&H High Court Acquits Husband, In-Laws In Abetment Case

Title: RXXX v. State of Punjab

2026 LiveLaw (PH) 292

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has acquitted a husband and three in-laws convicted for abetting the suicide of a young married woman, holding that the prosecution failed to prove that she had died by suicide. [2026 LiveLaw (PH) 291]

The Court noted the conflict between the parents' account of finding her hanging and the post-mortem doctor's opinion that her cause of death was strangulation.

No Financial Or Weapon Trail Beyond Accused's Own Admission, Only 1 Witness Examined In 3.5 Yrs: P&H High Court Grants Bail In UAPA Case

Case Title: Nishan Singh v. State of Punjab

2026 LiveLaw (PH) 293

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has granted regular bail to a UAPA accused allegedly involved in a plot to target-kill Hindu leaders in Punjab, holding that beyond the accused's own disclosure and confession, the State had "failed to refer to any evidence as would establish the link of the appellant with the alleged gangsters," and no financial trail or trail of weapons traced. [2026 LiveLaw (PH) 293]

Prior Litigation Readily Available Online; Counsel's Ignorance Borders On Professional Dereliction: P&H High Court

Title: Jagjeet Singh v State of Punjab 

2026 LiveLaw (PH) 294

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has observed that an advocate's "plea of ignorance" about prior litigation, despite the information being readily available on the Court's website, "borders on dereliction of requisite professionalism." [2026 LiveLaw (PH) 294]

Justice Sumeet Goel said, "In an era where judicial transparency is bolstered by digital infrastructure, the failure to disclose such material fact is increasingly inexcusable. When the information regarding history of a case and other petition(s) arising out of the same FIR, is readily available via the High Court's website/public domain, a plea of ignorance by counsel filing the petition borders on dereliction of requisite professionalism."

45-Day Delay In Informing Detenue Of Right To Represent To Centre Violates Article 22(5): P&H High Court Quashes Preventive Detention

Title: Bala v UT Chandigarh

2026 LiveLaw (PH) 295

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has quashed the preventive detention of a woman under the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (PITNDPS Act), holding that the authorities' failure to promptly inform her of her right to make a representation to the Central Government, followed by inordinate delays in transmitting and deciding her representations, violated the constitutional safeguards under Article 22(5). 

Husband Undertaking To Pay Business Liability Doesn't Exonerate Wife From Cheque Bounce Trial: P&H High Court

Title: Tripti Srivastava and another v. Yogesh Singla

2026 LiveLaw (PH) 296

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has refused to quash proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 against a woman accused alongside her husband, holding that a Special Power of Attorney authorising him to act on her behalf, and to have his acts ratified as her own, could not be sidestepped merely because a subsequent settlement agreement recorded that his company would discharge the outstanding amount. 

P&H High Court Directs Courts Not To Disclose Identity Of Children In Conflict With Law In Judicial Records, Cause Lists

Case Title: [Name withheld] v. State of Haryana and another

2026 LiveLaw (PH) 297

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has directed that the name or any identifying particulars of a Child in Conflict with Law (CCL) shall not be disclosed in any judicial order, judgment, or other publicly accessible judicial record, holding that the protection under Section 74 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 extends to judicial proceedings even though the provision does not expressly use the words "Court" or "Judge." 

Man Who Fought For Nation Deserves Appreciation: P&H High Court Says War Injury Pension Arrears Can't Be Restricted To Three Years

Case Title: Ranjit Kaur v. Union of India and others

2026 LiveLaw (PH) 298

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has set aside an order of the Armed Forces Tribunal restricting the arrears of war injury pension to three years preceding the filing of the original application, holding that once entitlement to the pension itself is not in dispute, the soldier or, as in this case, his widow is entitled to arrears from the date the entitlement first arose. 

High Court Declines CBI Probe Into FIR Amid Marital Discord Between Two Haryana Judicial Officers

Case Title: X v. State of Haryana and others

2026 LiveLaw (PH) 299

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has declined to transfer to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) the probe into an FIR lodged by a judicial officer against his wife's alleged paramour.

The Court held that the case, arising from a bitter matrimonial dispute between the petitioner and his wife, both judicial officers in Haryana, does not meet the threshold of a "rare and exceptional" case warranting such a transfer.

Immigration Fraud Under Garb Of Consultancy A "Growing Menace" That Merits Strict Scrutiny, Not Pre-Arrest Bail Leniency: P&H High Court

Case Title: Satpal Singh v. State of Punjab

2026 LiveLaw (PH) 300

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has declined anticipatory bail to a man accused of cheating a woman of ₹5.8 lakh on the pretext of sending her abroad to Canada, holding that immigration fraud of this kind "does not merely involve financial deceit but strikes at the very fabric of social trust, involving elements of human trafficking and cross-border immigration fraud."

Surety Can't Be Held Liable For Entire Bond Merely Because Parolee Committed Another Crime; Forfeiture Must Be Proportionate: P&H High Court

 Title: Shamsher Singh and another v. State of Haryana

2026 LiveLaw (PH) 301

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that forfeiture of a surety bond furnished for a prisoner's parole cannot be directed for the entire amount in a mechanical manner, and that the authority concerned must exercise its discretion on quantum judicially, having regard to whether the surety was guilty of any deliberate default, negligence or connivance in the breach.