Punjab & Haryana High Court Monthly Digest: May 2022 [Citations 90-124]

Vipul v. State of Punjab2022 LiveLaw (PH) 90

Kulwinder Singh v. State of Punjab 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 91

Tata AIG General Insurance Company Limited Vs. Surjeet Kaur and others, with connected matters 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 92

M/s Experion Developers Private Limited vs. State of Haryana and others 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 93

Lovedeep Singh v. Gurpreet Kaur [CRR(F)-314-2022] 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 94

Amir Kapoor Versus Nisha & another 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 95

Simranjit Kaur @ Simarn Kaur Versus Bhinder Pal Singh 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 96

Sunita Devi Versus Amrit Lal 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 97

Resuna & Anr. v. State of Haryana and others 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 98

Jatinder Singh v. Union of India and others [Civil Writ Petition No.35638 of 2019] 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 99

Sunita and Another v. State of Haryana and Others 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 100

Manpreet Singh vs State of Punjab and others 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 101

Ajay Vs. State of Haryana 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 102

Manish Singh @ Golu v. State of UT Chandigarh 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 103

Raj Bala v. State of Haryana and Others 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 104

Mamta Versus State of Haryana, and connected matter 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 105

Rani versus Additional District Magistrate And Anr 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 106

Harbans Kaur v. Joginder Pal [FAO-M-272 of 2017] 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 107

Gurpreet Singh Versus State of Punjab 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 108

Seema Rani Versus Anurag Verma and others 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 109

Surjit Singh Dhaliwal Versus State of Punjab and another 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 110

Paro and others v. Mahindo 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 111

Simarjit Kaur @ Simerjeet Kaur @ Simarjeet Kaur versus Maninder Kaur 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 112

Rakesh Khanna @ Babbu v. Gulzari Lal and Others 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 113

Ankush Rawat v. Guru Nanak Education Trust and Another 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 114

Novex Communications Private Limited v. Union of India and another 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 115

Amit v. State of Haryana and Others 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 116

Mahavir Singh v. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited and others 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 117

Vasu Syal v. State of Punjab 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 118

Parveen Mehta Versus Vishal Joshi 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 119

Rinku Singh Versus Union of India 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 120

Munshi Ram versus Vidya Devi and Another 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 121

Sharma Constructions Joint Venture Versus Punjab Agro Industries Corporation Ltd. and another 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 122

Gurmahabir Singh v. State of Punjab 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 123

Paramjeet @ Kala and Other v. State of Haryana 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 124

Judgments/ Orders of the Week

Case Title: Vipul v. State of Punjab 

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 90

Punjab and Haryana High Court while dealing with a petition for seeking concession of regular bail in FIR registered under provisions of IPC and the Arms Act, held that taking into consideration, the role of the petitioner, the alleged recovery and the stage of investigation along with the period of actual custodial detention already undergone, it is appropriate to enlarge the petitioner on bail. The bench comprising Justice Vinod S. Bhardwaj held that the mere involvement of the petitioner in other cases cannot be the sole basis to keep him confined in perpetuity.

Even though the antecedents of an accused may be one amongst the relevant considerations while adjudicating a petition on merits for grant of bail, however, a mere involvement of the petitioner in other cases cannot be the sole basis to keep him confined in perpetuity.

Case Title: Kulwinder Singh v. State of Punjab

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 91

The Punjab and Haryana High Court, while dealing with a case registered under provisions of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO), held that, for an offense of sexual assault, final report would be complete on statement of the prosecutrix and FSL report can be used only to corroborate their version. The bench comprising Justice Suvir Sehgal held that based on the challan filed by the Investigating Agency, the Court can take cognizance of the offense.

Case Title: Tata AIG General Insurance Company Limited Vs. Surjeet Kaur and others, with connected matters

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 92

The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently while dealing with a matter related to compensation in a motor accident act claim observed that negligence of the driver is not, per se, the reason for inviting liability by such a vehicle. The observation came from Justice Rajbir Sehrawat, who observed that it is the 'use of vehicle' on the road, which per se, invites liability for the owner of the vehicle; and thus it is for the insurer; to pay compensation; in case the vehicle is involved in accident.

Case Title: M/s Experion Developers Private Limited vs. State of Haryana and others

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 93

The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently observed that obtaining of an occupancy certificate will not render anyone to be outside the purview of the jurisdiction of the State Real Estate Regulatory Authority. Justice Amol Rattan Singh observed that with a completion certificate still not having been obtained, simply obtaining of an occupancy certificate or having applied for such certificate in terms of the Haryana Building Code, 2017, we would not consider the petitioner to be outside the purview of the jurisdiction of the respondent Authority.

Case title - Lovedeep Singh v. Gurpreet Kaur [CRR(F)-314-2022]

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 94

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has observed that a wife cannot be denied maintenance on the grounds of being well-educated and that a husband is legally and morally responsible to look after his wife and children. The Court, in its order, observed that there was nothing on record showing that the respondent-wife had deserted the petitioner without any rhyme and reason. The Court also discarded the argument of the Husband that since the respondent-wife is well educated and has done her MA in Hindi and thus, she is not entitled to the maintenance.

Case Title: Amir Kapoor Versus Nisha & another

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 95

Punjab and Haryana High Court while dealing with a revision petition, held that it is well-settled law that in light of statutory provisions under Section 41(h) of the Specific Relief Act, where a more efficacious remedy is available, the party is under a legal obligation to opt for that remedy. The court noted that by the judgment and order dated 26.08.2010, maintenance allowance has been granted to the wife and the minor child and under the relevant provisions of Cr.P.C., only a revision lies under Section 397, 398, and 399 Cr.P.C. which has not been brought to the notice of this Court, therefore mere challenge to a finding in a civil suit is not permissible in light of the well-settled principles of law that provide that recourse has to be laid to the provisions enshrined under the law.

Case Title: Simranjit Kaur @ Simarn Kaur Versus Bhinder Pal Singh

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 96

Punjab and Haryana High Court while dealing with a transfer plea by the wife in a divorce case has allowed the transfer on the ground that it is difficult for the wife who has a minor child to travel a distance of 55 km stating that it is certainly a case of undue hardship of exceptional nature, necessitating intervention by the Court.

Case Title: Sunita Devi Versus Amrit Lal

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 97

Punjab and Haryana High Court while dealing with a transfer application in relation to a matrimonial dispute, held that provisions of Section 24 of CPC cannot be construed so loosely to come to the aid of a party on "frivolous and flimsy" grounds. Section 24 prescribes the general power of transfer and withdrawal. Sub-clause (1)(a) states: On the application of any of the parties and after notice to the parties and after hearing such of them as desired to be heard, or of its own motion without such notice, the High Court or the District Court may at any stage transfer any suit, appeal or other proceeding pending before it for trial or disposal to any Court subordinate to it and competent to try or dispose of the same.

Case Title: Resuna & Anr. v. State of Haryana and others

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 98

"In the ever-evolving society, evolving the law with it, the time is to shift perspective from didactics of the orthodox society, shackled with the strong strings of morality supported by religions to one that values an individual's life above all", the Punjab and Haryana High Court observed recently while hearing a protection plea filed by a live-in couple. The court also remarked that the times are changing fast, even in those lands that were left behind and stuck with the old ethos and conservative social milieu. We are governed by the rule of law and follow the Constitutional dharma, added the court.

10.Trafficking Of Human Beings Won't Amount To Jeopardising Sovereignty & Integrity Of India: Punjab & Haryana High Court

Case title - Jatinder Singh v. Union of India and others [Civil Writ Petition No.35638 of 2019]

Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 99

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has observed that trafficking in human beings doesn't amount to jeopardizing the sovereignty and integrity of India. The Bench of Justice Sudhir Mittal further observed that it may jeopardize friendly relations of India with a foreign country but it would be so only if there is tangible evidence available to substantiate the allegations.

11.Public Morality Cannot Overshadow Constitutional Morality: Punjab And Haryana High Court

Case Title: Sunita and Another Vs State Of Haryana and Others

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 100

Punjab and Haryana High Court while dealing with a petition seeking protection of life and personal liberty, held that the Constitutional right of protection cannot be abridged, except as per the manner established by law. The bench comprising Justice Vinod S. Bhardwaj held that the Supreme Court has time and time again observed that it is not the Court's domain to intervene in the matters of choice or suitability of a marriage/relationship of an individual.

12.Licensing Authority Can Refuse To Grant Arms Licence Only On The Grounds Enumerated In Section 14 Of Arms Licence Act: Punjab And Haryana High Court

Case Title: Manpreet Singh vs State of Punjab and others

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 101

Punjab and Haryana High Court while dealing with a petition challenging the order and appeal whereby the application for grant of arms license has been rejected, held that the reasons assigned for dismissing an application cannot be different from the ones prescribed under Clause (a) and (b) of Section 14(1) of the Arms Act, 1959.

13.Veracity Of Allegations To Be Evaluated By Trial Court: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Bail To Man Accused Of Poisoning Partner

Case Title: Ajay Vs. State of Haryana

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 102

Punjab and Haryana High Court while dealing with a petition filed under Section 439 CrPC by a man accused of poisoning the deceased-complainant with whom he was in a relationship, granted bail on the ground that it was a "consensual relationship" and as the investigation stands completed, the veracity of these allegations would be evaluated by the trial Court only.

14.Ordinarily, Bail Shouldn't Be Granted To Accused If Court Is Of Prima Facie View That He Acted With Cruelty: Punjab & Haryana High Court

Case Title: Manish Singh @ Golu v. State of UT Chandigarh

Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 103

Stressing that cruelty is one of the factors in deciding on bails, the Punjab and Haryana High Court recently observed that ordinarily, once the courts form a prima facie opinion that the accused acted with cruelty, then such an accused should not be granted bail.

15.Child Adopted Post-Retirement Can't Be Denied Family Pension: Punjab & Haryana High Court

Case Title: Raj Bala v. State of Haryana and Others 

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 104

Punjab and Haryana High Court held that an adoption post-retirement would not be a ground to deny the benefit of the family pension to a child. Merely because the adoption is post retirement which is mainly for the purpose of providing dependency and also some light in the evening of the life of the couple. The same would not as such be good enough to deny the said child the benefit of the family pension merely on account of the fact that the decision as such to adopt was taken at a belated stage.

16.S.437 CrPC Does Not Give Absolute Right To Bail To A Lady Accused In Multiple FIRs For Duping ₹167 Crores: Punjab & Haryana High Court

Case Title: Mamta Versus State of Haryana, and connected matter

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 105

Punjab and Haryana High Court while dealing with a case where the petitioners conspired and duped several victims of an amount of Rs. 167 crores by alluring innocent persons on the pretext of providing them tenders with National Security Guards (NSG), Manesar, held that there are serious allegations of fraud and cheating against the petitioners, and no ground is made out to grant them the concession of regular bail.

17.Jurisdiction Of Senior Citizens Maintenance Tribunal Can't Be Invoked When Complainant Woman Is Aged Below 58 Yrs: Punjab & Haryana High Court

Case Title: Rani versus Additional District Magistrate And Anr

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 106

Punjab and Haryana High Court while dealing with a challenge to the order of the Additional District Magistrate passed in response to a maintenance petition filed by a woman claiming to be a senior citizen under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizen Act, 2007, held that the Maintenance Tribunal could not have invoked its jurisdiction for the reason that the age of the woman was less than 58 years on the relevant date i.e. the date of institution of the proceedings before such Tribunal.

18."Enough Mental Cruelty Caused To Husband": PH High Court Upholds Divorce Decree Granted In Favour Of Husband On Grounds Of Cruelty

Case title: Harbans Kaur v. Joginder Pal [FAO-M-272 of 2017]

Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 107

The Punjab and Haryana High Court noted that the Supreme Court had held that even one complaint lodged by the wife found to be false against the husband and his family members amounted to cruelty. Even if husband and wife are staying together and husband does not speak to the wife, it would cause mental cruelty and a spouse staying away by sending vulgar and defamatory letters or notices or filing complaints containing indecent allegations or by initiating number of judicial proceedings can make the life of other spouse miserable, the Court added.

19.S.82 CrPC | 30 Days Period Between Actual Date Of Effecting Proclamation & Date Nominated For Appearance Is Mandatory: Punjab & Haryana High Court

Case Title: Gurpreet Singh Versus State of Punjab

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 108

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that a clear period of 30 days starting from the date when a proclamation under Section 82 of the Cr.P.C. is actually affected up to the date nominated for causing appearance is mandatory.

20.Punjab & Haryana HC Orders State To Withhold Salary Of Home Secretary Until Payment Of Entire Pensionary Benefits To Widow Of A Class IV Employee

Case Title: Seema Rani Versus Anurag Verma and others

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 109

Punjab and Haryana High Court while dealing with the plea moved by the widow of a Class IV employee of the State, contending her right to pensionary benefits, ordered the salary of the Home Secretary, Punjab, to remain stayed till the entire amount of the pensionary benefits is released to her.

21.Punjab & Haryana High Court Stays Arrest Of Proclaimed Offender, Says His Approaching The Court On Own Establishes His Bonafide

Case Title: Surjit Singh Dhaliwal Versus State of Punjab and another

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 110

The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently stayed the arrest of a man, who was declared a proclaimed offender by the trial Court, while directing him to surrender before the Court with a stipulation that he shall be released on bail on the same day, subject to furnishing bail bonds and other appropriate additional conditions.

22.Courts Must Exercise Discretion To Condone Delay In Filing Written Statement After Due Circumspection: Punjab And Haryana High Court

Case Title : Paro and others v. Mahindo

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 111

Punjab and Haryana High Court while dealing with a petition against the order passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Ferozepur via which petitioner's defense was struck off, held that the provisions of Order 8 Rule 1 of the CPC are directory in nature, however, the Courts must exercise their discretion to condone the delay in filing the written statement after exercising due circumspection and if it appears that the defendant has attempted to engage in dilatory tactics, the Courts should nip the same unhesitatingly.

23.Inadvertent Mistake By Court While Adjourning Matter Can't Take Away Valuable Right Of Party To Lead Evidence: Punjab & Haryana High Court

Case Title: Simarjit Kaur @ Simerjeet Kaur @ Simarjeet Kaur versus Maninder Kaur

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 112

Punjab and Haryana High Court while dealing with a revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order of the Trial Court which instead of adjourning the case for plaintiff's evidence, fixed it inadvertently for rebuttal evidence, held that Merely because an inadvertent mistake was caused by the Court while adjourning the matter the plaintiff-respondent cannot be deprived of her valuable right of leading evidence in the affirmative on issues the onus of which was cast upon her.

24.While Contesting Application Under Order VII Rule 11 CPC Only Contents Of Plaint Are To Be Seen: Punjab & Haryana High Court

Case Title : Rakesh Khanna @ Babbu v. Gulzari Lal and Others

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 113

Punjab and Haryana High Court while dealing with a revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order vide which the application preferred by the defendant no.1 (petitioner) under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in a suit for declaration of title was dismissed, held that it is trite that at the time of contesting the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC only the contents of the plaint are to be seen and not those of the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC or any other pleadings.

25.Parties Are Bound By Statements Made By Their Counsel In Court: Punjab & Haryana High Court

Case Title : Ankush Rawat v. Guru Nanak Education Trust and Another

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 114

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has reiterated that parties are bound by the statements made by their counsel in Court. The observation was made while disallowing a review application filed against an order on the ground of an 'error apparent'.

26. Executive Can't Exempt Use Of Copyrighted Sound Recordings In Marriage Functions, "Fair Use" To Be Decided In Facts Of Each Case: Punjab & Haryana HC

Case Title: Novex Communications Private Limited v. Union of India and another

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 115

While quashing a public notice/letter exempting use of copyrighted sound recordings in marriage functions from liability, the Punjab and Haryana High Court recently held that the executive has no authority under the Copyright Act to clarify or interpret the applicability of the law through public notices. Thus, the executive cannot take away the right of a copyright owner to initiate proceedings for infringement of copyright.

27. S.482 CrPC Empowers High Court To Entertain Applications Not Contemplated In CrPC If Required To Meet Ends Of Justice: Punjab & Haryana HC

Case Title: Amit v. State of Haryana and Others

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 116

The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently observed that Section 482 of CrPC gives the power to this Court to entertain applications which are not contemplated in the Code of Criminal Procedure, in the event, it is felt that the ends of justice will require that the Court can invoke the extraordinary powers which are to be exercised with restraint and not lightly.

28. Daily Wage Service Rendered By Employee To Be Considered While Computing Pensionary Benefits: Punjab & Haryana High Court Reiterates

Case Title : Mahavir singh v. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited and others

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 117

Punjab and Haryana High Court recently allowed a writ petition whereby an employee of the Uttari Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam had sought that the daily wage service rendered by him till his services were regularized should be taken into consideration for computing his pensionary benefits. It further noted that though the petitioner's services were terminated in the year 1982, the same was held to be bad by a Labour Court and the Petitioner was reinstated in service with back wages. Therefore, he is entitled to the benefit of counting his daily wage service as qualifying service for computing his pensionary benefits.

29. Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Bail To Man Arrested Over Making 'Inappropriate' Comments Against Guru Nanak Dev Ji

Case Title - Vasu Syal v. State of Punjab

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 118

The Punjab and Haryana High Court granted bail to a man arrested over an alleged inappropriate comment against Shri Guru Nanak Dev Ji and his father which was offensive to the followers of the Sikh Religion. The Bench of Justice Harinder Singh Sidhu granted bail to one Vasu Syal as it noted that he is under custody since November 2021 and the investigation in the case is complete and challan has been filed.

30. Undisputed Signatures On The Cheque In Itself Are Not Sufficient For Conviction Under Section 138 Of NI Act: Punjab And Haryana High Court

Case Title: Parveen Mehta Versus Vishal Joshi

Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 119

Punjab and Haryana High Court while dealing with an application under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. for grant of leave to appeal against the judgment acquitting respondent in Complaint Case of 2012, held that The undisputed signatures of the respondent on the cheque in itself is not sufficient for conviction under Section 138 of the Act.

31.Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail In Case Of Smuggling Of Commercial Quantity Of Heroin From Pakistan To India

Case Title: Rinku Singh Versus Union of India

Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 120

Punjab and Haryana High Court while dealing with a prayer for grant of anticipatory bail in NCB Crime case filed under provisions of NDPS Act, 1985 to the accused-petitioner who was involved in the smuggling of Commercial quantity of Heroin from Pakistan to India, held that from the reply aforesaid, the role and active involvement of the petitioner is apparent. In view thereof, no ground is made out for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Therefore, no ground is made out for the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

32.Authorities Under Rent Act To Only Ascertain If Premises Are Bonafidely Required By Landlord, Can't Embark On Roving Enquiry: Punjab & Haryana HC

Case Title: Munshi Ram versus Vidya Devi and Another

Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 121

The Punjab and Haryana High Court while dealing with a revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order of the Rent Controller whereby the application for directing the respondents-landlord to produce relevant documents in their possession was dismissed, has held that the present petition is nothing but an endeavour to embark on an endeavour not relevant to the matter in dispute. A Court would not embark on a roving and fishing enquiry in order to assist a party to collect evidence.

33.Persons Ineligible To Participate In Tender Process Can't Overcome Disqualification By Entering Into Joint Venture: Punjab & Haryana High Court

Case Title: Sharma Constructions Joint Venture Versus Punjab Agro Industries Corporation Ltd. and another

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 122

Punjab and Haryana High Court has upheld an order vide which Sharma Constructions Joint Venture was declared technically non-compliant for e-tender floated by Punjab Agro Industries for the supply of gypsum for agriculture use, on the ground of being ineligible. The Court noted that the expert committee of the authorities had examined the issue detail and found the petitioner to be ineligible. The bench observed that a perusal of the Joint Venture Agreement would indicate that there is no clause indicating as to who would be managing the Joint Venture. On the contrary, the document indicates that in spite of constituting the so called Joint Venture, the constituents/ proprietors would continue to manage their own separate firms.

34.Convict's Sentence Enhanced My Modifying Trial Court Judgment Under Reader's Signature: Punjab & Haryana HC Asks Appellate Court To Conduct Inquiry

Case Title : Gurmahabir Singh v. State of Punjab

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 123

Punjab and Haryana High Court recently came across a case where the original order of conviction passed by the Trial Court was modified under the signature of the Reader of the Court, during the pendency of an appeal preferred by the convict against the said judgment, thereby enhancing the sentence of the convict from 2 months to two years, held that though all these points need to be decided by the Sessions Judge, Tarn Taran, who herself is administrative head of the Sessions Division, Tarn Taran and on the face of it, it requires an inquiry as to how the corrections were made under the signatures of the Reader of the Court concerned, thereby enhancing the sentence, though in the original order, passed by the trial Court, it was only directed that instead of Section 323 IPC, which is mentioned at two places, Section 326 IPC be substituted at one place and there was no such direction to enhance the sentence from 02 months to 02 years.

35. S.145 Evidence Act | Attention Of Witness Must Be Drawn To Previous Statement If It Is To Be Used For Purpose Of Contradicting Him: P&H High Court

Case Title : Paramjeet @ Kala and Other v. State of Haryana 

Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 124

The Punjab and Haryana High Court while dealing with an appeal filed by three appellants against the order whereby they were convicted for robbery, if the witness was not confronted with that part of the statement with which the defence wanted to contradict him, then the Court cannot suo moto make use of statements to police not proved in compliance with Section 145 of the Evidence Act that is, by drawing attention to the parts intended for contradiction.

Other updates

Case title - Kumar Vishwas v. State of Punjab and Anr. [CRM-M-17450-2022]

The Punjab and Haryana High Court stayed the arrest of former Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader and poet Kumar Vishwas in a case registered against him by the Punjab Police in connection with the statements made by him on Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal. The Bench of Justice Anoop Chitkara issued the order today on Kumar Vishwas's plea challenging the FIR and seeking a stay on any coercive action against himself, a stay on the investigation, and a stay on his arrest/consequent proceedings against himself.

Case Title: Nisha Kumari and Ors v. Haryana Public Service Commission and Anr| WP(C) 310/2022

The Supreme Court on Wednesday stayed the holding of the Mains Examination of Haryana Civil Service (Judicial Branch)- 2021 from May 6 to May 8 in view of the clash with the date announced for conducting the Preliminary Exam of Madhya Pradesh Civil Judge, Junior Division (Entry Level) Exam-2021. Taking note of the fact that the MP Judicial Service exam is being held on May 6, a bench comprising Justice Vineet Saran and Justice JK Maheshwari passed the interim order to postpone the Haryana exam.

Another significant development has taken place in the ongoing BJP leader Tajinder Pal Singh Bagga Arrest Row as the Punjab Government has moved to the Punjab and Haryana High Court with a habeas corpus plea for the release of its officials from the alleged illegal custody of the Haryana Police. It may be noted that Bagga was arrested by the Punjab Police however, with the intervention of the Harayana Police and on the strength of a Delhi Court's order, Delhi Police was able to bring Bagga back to Delhi in the evening after taking him under their Custody from Thanesar police Station, Kurukshetra (Haryana).

The Punjab and Haryana High Court today adjourned the hearing till May 10 in the Punjab Government's habeas corpus plea for the release of its officials from the alleged illegal custody of the Haryana Police.

A Local Court in Punjab (SAS Nagar) has issued a non-bailable arrest warrant against BJP Leader Tajinder Pal Singh Bagga. The court has also termed the release of Bagga from Punjab Police's Custody as 'illegal'. Essentially, the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mohali, Ravtesh Inderjit Singh was hearing an application filed by the Punjab State praying for the issuance of an arrest warrant against Bagga in connection with a case registered against him under Section 153-A, 505, 505 (2), 506 of IPC.

In yet another significant late-night development, BJP Leader Tajinder Pal Singh Bagga has approached the Punjab and Haryana High Court challenging the non-bailable arrest warrant issued against him by the Mohali Court earlier today. The Chief Justice of the High Court has ordered an urgent hearing of the plea and the hearing is set to take place later tonight at the residence of Justice Anoop Chitkara.

In midnight development, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has stayed the arrest of BJP Leader Tajinder Pal Singh Bagga till May 10. Bagga had approached the HC challenging the warrant issued against himself by the Mohali Court earlier today. The Bench of Justice Anoop Chitkara directed Punjab police to not take any coercive action against Bagga until the next date of hearing.

Other updates

Case title - Tejinder Pal Singh Bagga v. State Of Punjab And Another

The Punjab and Haryana High Court today stayed the arrest of BJP Leader Tajinder Pal Singh Bagga till July 6. This development comes three days after the High Court had, in a midnight hearing, directed the police not to take any coercive action again him till May 10. However, the Punjab Police has been given the liberty to continue its investigation in the case and has asked Bagga to cooperate in the probe. The Court directed that in case the police want to investigate the matter, they can go to Bagga's house twice before the next date (July 6).

Case title: Ajay Pal Singh Middukhera v. State Of Punjab And Others

Brother of the slain Youth Akali Dal (YAD) leader Vicky Middukhera has moved to the Punjab and Haryana High Court seeking adequate protection in view of the alleged threat perception from the gang members. Vicky's elder brother Ajaypal Singh Middukhera has moved this plea. The bench of Justice Karamjit Singh has asked the State of Punjab and Punjab Police to look into representation (submitted earlier by Ajay Pal Sigh) and assess threat perception and if the situation so warrants to do the needful in accordance with law and to submit its report in this regard by the next date of hearing (August 18, 2022).