Punjab & Haryana High Court Weekly Round-Up: March 30 - April 05, 2026

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 102 to 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 110Nominal IndexManjit Singh v/s State of Punjab, 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 102Alam v. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation & Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 103Saral Mobile Project Services Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Haryana & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 104Anil Sharma v. State of U.T., Chandigarh & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 105Hemant Kumar Mittal v/s Haryana Shehri Vikas Pradhikaran and others & Batch, 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 106Krishan Bhatia & Ors. vs. Virender Singh & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 107Sohan vs. The State of Haryana & Ors., and connected matters, 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 108Samarjit Singh vs. State of Punjab & Ors. and connected matters, 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 109Hardev Singh vs. State of Punjab & Ors. and connected matters, 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 110Judgments/OrdersPunjab & Haryana High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail To Former SGPC Secretary In FIR Over 'Missing' Saroops Of Guru Granth SahibCase title: Manjit Singh v/s State of PunjabCRM-M-12246-2026 (O&M)Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 102The Punjab and Haryana High Court granted anticipatory bail to a former Secretary of Shriomani Gurudwara Prabandhak Committee (SGPC) booked in an FIR over 328 missing sacred saroops (holy books) of the Guru Granth Sahib, observing that the allegations did not prima facie indicate any misappropriation by him.In doing so the court further remarked that the FIR was lodged after a delay in 2025 wherein the incident had allegedly occured between 2011-2016, for which no explanation had been given.'Absence Of Documentary Proof No Grounds To Deny Just Compensation In Accident Cases': P&H High Court Enhances Amount From ₹95K To 7 LakhCase Title: Alam v. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation & Anr. FAO No. 4610 of 2008 (O&M)Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 103The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that mere absence of documentary proof of income cannot be a ground to deny just compensation to an injured claimant in a motor accident case. The Court observed that compensation must be assessed on a reasonable basis rather than denied for want of strict proof.Justice Harkesh Manuja was hearing an appeal filed by the injured claimant challenging the award of ₹95,000/- passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gurgaon, seeking enhancement of compensation for injuries sustained in a motor vehicular accident dated 22.11.2005 caused due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle. The claimant contended that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal was grossly inadequate in view of the nature of injuries suffered. It was submitted that the Tribunal failed to properly assess loss of income, future earning capacity and other heads of compensation.'Health Concerns Cannot Differ From Locality To Locality': Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets Aside Cancellation Of Mobile Tower PermissionCase Title: Saral Mobile Project Services Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Haryana & Ors. CWP-22231-2025Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 104The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that the health concerns of residents of a particular locality cannot be treated differently from those of the rest of the State, and cannot justify the selective cancellation of permission for the installation of a mobile tower. The Court observed that such reasoning is manifestly baseless when similar installations exist across the State in comparable localities.Justice Jagmohan Bansal was hearing a writ petition filed by Saral Mobile Project Services Pvt. Ltd. challenging the order of the Deputy Commissioner, Faridabad, whereby permission granted on 07.01.2025 for the installation of a mobile tower was cancelled on the ground of “public interest” following objections raised by the Residents Welfare Association. The cancellation was based on a communication issued by HSVP stating that residents of the locality were opposing the installation of the tower due to perceived health hazards, particularly for elderly persons. The respondents contended that the Deputy Commissioner was competent to cancel the permission in view of such objections and in the larger public interest.'Consensual Sex Outside Marriage By Woman Is Promiscuity, Not Misconception Of Fact': P&H High Court Quashes Rape FIR Against ManCase Title: Anil Sharma v. State of U.T., Chandigarh & Ors. CRM-M-1885 of 2021 (O&M)Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 105The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that where an adult woman voluntarily engages in sexual relations over a prolonged period, such conduct cannot be construed as arising from a misconception of fact so as to attract the offence of rape under Section 376 IPC. The Court observed that in such circumstances, the relationship reflects consensual conduct.Justice N.S. Shekhawat was hearing a petition under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of FIR registered under Section 376(2) IPC on the complaint of the husband of the prosecutrix, alleging that the petitioner, who was a skating coach known to the family, had developed relations with the prosecutrix and...

Punjab & Haryana High Court Weekly Round-Up: March 30 - April 05, 2026

Malavika Prasad

Tags