Nominal Index [Citations 353-385 ]Suraj Kumar v. State of Punjab and others 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 353 Amrinder Singh & Ors v. IT Department & Ors 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 354 Kuldeep v. State of Haryana and others 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 355 Hardik Ahluwalia v. Gaurav Yadav, IPS and others 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 356 DIPESH JAIN v. STATE OF PUNJAB 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 357 NAVPREET KAUR v. UOI & Ors ...
Nominal Index [Citations 353-385 ]
Suraj Kumar v. State of Punjab and others 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 353
Amrinder Singh & Ors v. IT Department & Ors 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 354
Kuldeep v. State of Haryana and others 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 355
Hardik Ahluwalia v. Gaurav Yadav, IPS and others 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 356
DIPESH JAIN v. STATE OF PUNJAB 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 357
NAVPREET KAUR v. UOI & Ors 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 358
Hari Ram and others v State of Haryana & Ors 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 359
ONKAR SINGH @ OMKAR AND OTHERS v. MAHANT SITARAM DASS 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 360
DHARAM SINGH CHHOKER v. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT AND OTHERS 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 361
SUNIL MOHITE v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 362
ANAND v. STATE OF HARYANA 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 363
XXX v. XXX 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 364
XXX v. State of Punjab 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 365
Ashish Kumar v. State of Punjab 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 366
XXX v. XXX 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 367
DR. SHIVA SHARMA v. HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AND ANOTHER 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 368
GURMEET SINGH v. STATE OF HARYANA 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 369
VINOD KUMAR V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 370
Sumit Sharma and another v. State of Haryana 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 371
Amritpal Singh v. Union Territory Chandigarh 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 372
XXX v. XXXX 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 373
Gulshan Babbar v. Lalit Goyal and another 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 374
XXXXX v. XXXX 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 375
Kimti Lal @ Kimti Lal Bhagat v. State of Punjab and others 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 376
RUSHIL JINDAL v. PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AND OTHERS 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 377
XXX v XXX 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 378
HARBHAJAN SINGH AND OTHERS v. BHAKRA BEAS MANAGEMENT BOARD AND OTHERS 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 379
XXXXX v. XXXX 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 380
M/s Coromandel International Limited v. Shri Ambica Sales Corporation 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 381
Jagdish Masih and another v. The State of Punjab and others 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 382
KRISHAN KUMAR @ KRISHAN LAL v. STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 383
MANPREET ALIAS MANI v. STATE OF PUNJAB 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 384
Ranjit Singh v. State of Punjab and others 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 385
Reports
Title: Suraj Kumar v. State of Punjab and others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 353
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that a Magistrate is empowered to grant bail to an accused when a closure report is filed by the police, even if a previous bail plea was rejected by the High Court or the Session Court.
These observations were made while making an interim-bail absolute to an accused arrested for stealing a bicycle and a pair of shoes.
Title: Amrinder Singh & Ors v. IT Department & Ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 354
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has said that Enforcement Directorate (ED) can inspect documents filed before the Court with complaint lodged by the Income Tax ( I.T.) Department.
The complaint was filed by the I.T. Department against the petitioners under Section 277 of the Income Tax Act, read with the provisions of the IPC, wherein information in the form of master sheets originally received in Paris, France, by the authority of the Foreign Tax was placed on record.
Title: Kuldeep v. State of Haryana and others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 355
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that recruitment in public employment must remain sacrosanct, declaring that an appointment obtained on the basis of forged documents is “void ab initio”.
10 years after being appointed as Assistant Lineman, the authorities found that documents submitted were forged.
Title: Hardik Ahluwalia v. Gaurav Yadav, IPS and others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 356
Title: DIPESH JAIN v. STATE OF PUNJAB
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 357
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has held that seeking exemption from appearance on a few hearing dates during trial, by itself, does not justify cancellation of bail granted to an accused.
Justice Yashvir Singh Rathor said, "Merely, because petitioner had sought exemption on three dates out of six dates of hearing, it cannot be inferred that he had wilfully absented himself or was hampering the trial. The bail could have been cancelled only after recording a satisfaction that petitioner had wilfully absented with cogent reasons reflecting the necessity of such a stringent course. On this account, the impugned order is liable to be set aside."
Title: NAVPREET KAUR v. UOI & Ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 358
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that an inadvertent mistake in mentioning marital status or a spouse's name in a passport application does not, by itself, justify impounding or revoking the passport under Section 10(3)(b) of the Passports Act, 1967.
It clarified that such unintentional errors or lapses—whether by the applicant or someone filling the form on their behalf—do not amount to "mischief" under the law and cannot attract penalty of impounding of the passport.
Title: Hari Ram and others v State of Haryana & Ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 359
Observing that habitual delay and outright denial of rightful service benefits to employees, caused by bureaucratic red-tape and administrative indifference is one of the longstanding issues, the Punjab & Haryana High Court issued slew of guidelines for the bureaucrats.
Title: ONKAR SINGH @ OMKAR AND OTHERS v. MAHANT SITARAM DASS
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 360
The Punjab and Haryana High Court transferred a civil suit filed allegedly on the behest of an advocate to another court outside the jurisdiction, considering that the entire local Bar had gone on strike in support of the lawyer on whose behest the case was lodged.
Justice Archana Puri said, "Each case has to be decided on its own facts and circumstances. One distinctive circumstance, in any case, may lead to a different decision in the transfer application. But anyhow, underlying principle is that 'justice should not only be done, but it should also appear to have been done'. There is a categoric assertion of the applicants, about apprehension of exercise of influence, at the instance of Madhu Bala, member of the local Bar at Garhshankar. However, it may not be so, as the Courts are required to work, without influence of any person and give a decision, in accordance with law."
Title: DHARAM SINGH CHHOKER v. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT AND OTHERS
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 361
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has dismissed the petition filed by former Haryana MLA Dharam Singh Chokker, who had challenged his arrest by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) under the provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002.
Title: SUNIL MOHITE v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 362
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has observed that the dismissal of a police constable—who had over fifteen years of service—for sleeping during duty timing for two hours, an excessive punishment, equating it to "civil death."
Title: ANAND v. STATE OF HARYANA
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 363
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that an accused cannot be denied the right to pursue his studies abroad merely on the apprehension that he may flee from justice.
'Trivial Irritation' In Marriage Does Not Amount To Cruelty: Punjab & Haryana High Court
Title: XXX v. XXX
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 364
Dismissing a divorce plea, the Punjab & Haryana High Court held that ordinary marital disagreements, trivial irritations, or routine quarrels do not constitute "cruelty" within the meaning of Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
Justice Gurvinder Singh Gill and Justice Deepinder Singh Nalwa said, "Cruelty, within the meaning of Section 13 of the Act, must be of such a nature as to cause reasonable apprehension in the mind of the aggrieved spouse that it is harmful or injurious to live with each other. Mere trivial irritations, quarrels or normal wear and tear does not amount to cruelty. In the present case, no such conduct on the part of the respondent-husband has been established that would amount to mental or physical cruelty under the law."
Title: XXX v. State of Punjab
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 365
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has refused to grant pre-arrest bail to a man accused of abetting the suicide of a 16-year-and-11-month-old girl, observing that Mens Rea In abetment of Suicide case can be inferred from successive acts of accused, not just a single incIdent.
Title: Ashish Kumar v. State of Punjab
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 366
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has granted bail to a man accused under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) after he spent more than five years in custody. The Court observed that there was no material evidence placed on record to prove that the accused had advocated or incited terrorist acts.
Title: XXX v. XXX
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 367
The Punjab and Haryana High Court observed that when either of spouses have chosen to live "apart for over three decades without even a show of reconciliation or cohabitation, the very essence of marriage stands eroded."
Title: DR. SHIVA SHARMA v. HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AND ANOTHER
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 368
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has criticised its former judge, Justice Alok Singh, for making adverse remarks in the Annual Confidential Report (ACR) of a district judge that ultimately led to the latter's compulsory retirement.
Title: GURMEET SINGH v. STATE OF HARYANA
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 369
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has clarified that the authority to direct a re-investigation lies exclusively with superior courts such as the High Court itself. Magistrates, the court emphasized, do not possess the power to order a re-investigation.
Title: VINOD KUMAR V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 370
Emphasizing the need to honour ex-servicemen who retire at a young age after serving the nation, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has observed that it is the duty of employers not to create obstacles in their rehabilitation by denying them the opportunity of employment under the the ex- servicemen quota.
Title: Sumit Sharma and another v. State of Haryana
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 371
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that mandating a local surety as a condition for bail amounts to an assault on the fundamental rights of a person.
The court said that such a requirement discriminates against individuals from other parts of the country solely on the basis of their residence.
Title: Amritpal Singh v. Union Territory Chandigarh
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 372
The Punjab and Haryana High Court acquitted a man who was found in possession of a licensed firearm allowed in Punjab only, noting that the man had boarded a bus and fallen asleep, unintentionally crossing into Chandigarh, and held that there was no deliberate breach of the Arms Act.
Title: XXX v. XXXX
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 373
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that a consensual physical relationship between adults cannot be construed as rape merely because it did not culminate in marriage.
The Court quashed an FIR lodged against a man for allegedly committing rape, noting that he had entered into a consensual relationship with his fiancée, wherein after the roka ceremony the marriage could not take place due to differences between the two sides.
Title: Gulshan Babbar v. Lalit Goyal and another
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 374
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has refused to cancel the bail granted to the Managing Director of IREO Group, observing that a stranger to the case, who has not suffered any direct prejudice, has no legal standing to seek cancellation of bail.
Title: XXXXX v. XXXX
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 375
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that merely attempting to initiate an unwelcome conversation with a woman—though "annoying"—does not, by itself, constitute the criminal offence of outraging her modesty under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code.
Title: Kimti Lal @ Kimti Lal Bhagat v. State of Punjab and others
Citation:: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 376
The Punjab and Haryana High Court criticized the Punjab Police for an "inordinate and unjustified" 15-year delay in filing a cancellation report in a criminal case. Expressing serious concern over the lackadaisical approach of the investigating agency, the court imposed a cost of ₹1 lakh on the Punjab Government.
Title: RUSHIL JINDAL v. PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AND OTHERS
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 377
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has upheld the validity of the rule mandating a minimum of 50% aggregate marks for qualification in the Superior Judiciary Examination of both the states.
Title: XXX v XXX
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 378
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has directed the Haryana government to pay ₹4 lakh minimum interim compensation to a 14-year-old rape survivor but declined her plea to terminate 29 weeks pregnancy, citing the advise of medical board.
Title: HARBHAJAN SINGH AND OTHERS v. BHAKRA BEAS MANAGEMENT BOARD AND OTHERS
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 379
In a strong observation on the treatment of contractual workers, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has stated that labeling the service of daily wagers as merely 'casual' is "morally unjust." The Court emphasized that individuals who devote their entire working lives to public service should not be left without security or support in their twilight years.
Title: XXXXX v. XXXX
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 380
The Punjab and Haryana High Court, in a recent judgment, upheld the acquittal of an accused in a rape case, observing that the testimony of the prosecutrix suffered from serious infirmities and inconsistencies and the "defence has successfully raised a plausible case of false implication.”
Justice Manjari Nehru Kaul and Justice H.S. Grewal said, "we are satisfied that the prosecution has failed to prove the charge against accused-respondent No.2 ...and accused-respondent No.2 (in CRA-AD-38-2022) beyond reasonable doubt. The testimony of the prosecutrix suffers from serious infirmities, medical evidence does not connect the respondents to the offence, and the defence has successfully raised a plausible case of false implication.”
Title: M/s Coromandel International Limited v. Shri Ambica Sales Corporation
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 381
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has clarified that the right to bail of a convict under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI Act), cannot be denied by the appellate court merely due to non-payment of 20% of the compensation amount as stipulated under Section 148 of the Act.
Title: Jagdish Masih and another v. The State of Punjab and others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 382
Calling it a “sketchy petition” built on unverified claims, the Punjab & Haryana High Court has imposed a cost of Rs. 25,000 in a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) that alleged the Chairman of the Punjab State Minority Commission was only an “8th pass.”
Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sanjiv Berry frowned upon the “misuse of judicial process” under the garb of public interest.
Punjab Police Rules| State Can't Award Punishment Other Than Dismissal Where Police Officer Is Sentenced To Over 1 Month R.I : P&H High Court
Title: KRISHAN KUMAR @ KRISHAN LAL v. STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 383
In a detailed judgment interpreting the Punjab Police Rules (as applicable in Haryana) (PPR), the Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that the State government cannot impose any punishment other than dismissal from service in cases where a police officer has been sentenced to more than one month of rigorous imprisonment. The Court emphasized that the Rules leave no discretion with the disciplinary authority in such circumstances.
Title: MANPREET ALIAS MANI v. STATE OF PUNJAB
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 384
The Punjab and Haryana High Court while granting bail to a man booked after alleged drug overdose death of a youth, observed that pure drugs can often be more lethal than adulterated substances.
Perusing the pleadings, the Court found that the cause of death was drug overdose and at this stage it could not be ascertained whether the accused-petitioner forcibly administered an overdose of the drug to the deceased or if the deceased had taken it on his own.
Title: Ranjit Singh v. State of Punjab and others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 385
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has held that seeking undertakings from employees—wherein they are made to forgo their lawful service benefits, is not only exploitative but also unconstitutional.
The plea was filed challenging the order of the State authorities denying service benefits to a municipal worker, on the ground that he signed an undertaking forfeiting any claim to back wages following his reinstatement, after a tedious litigation.