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

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 v. Serious Fraud Investigation Office, Ministry of Corporate Affairs, UOI 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 224Angrej Brar v. State of Haryana, Department of Personnel and Training through its Secretary and another 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 225Jagtar Singh Hawara v. Union Territory, Chandigarh Administration and others 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 226Lehna Singh and another v. State of Punjab and another 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 227Kannect Engineers Pvt. Ltd. v. Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. and Others 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 228ReportsP&H High Court Dismisses Plea Seeking SIT Probe After Woman Alleged To Be Murdered Found AliveTitle: ATMA SINGH v.STATE OF PUNJABCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 219The 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 SentenceTitle: Shiv Kumar and another v. State of HaryanaCitation: 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 220The 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 DoubtfulTitle: Kusum Rani and another v. State of Haryana and othersCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 221The 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 InvestigationTitle: Veer Sain v. State of HaryanaCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 222The 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 SecretTitle: SANDEEP KUMAR @ SANDEEP PATHAK v. STATE OF PUNJABCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 223The 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 PUNJABPre-Cognizance Hearing Of Accused U/S 223 BNSS Not Applicable To SFIO Proceedings Under Companies Act: Punjab & Haryana High CourtTitle: Vivo India Private Limited v. Serious Fraud Investigation Office, Ministry of Corporate...

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

Aiman J. Chishti

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Aiman J. Chishti

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

Aiman J. Chishti

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Aiman J. Chishti

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers