Wife Can't Be Denied Maintenance Merely Because She Is A Graduate: Punjab & Haryana High CourtTitle: AXXXXX v. XXXXXXCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 261The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that a wife cannot be denied maintenance merely because she is a graduate and capable of earning, especially when she is not gainfully employed.Justice Jasgurpreet Singh Puri said, "mere fact that...
Title: AXXXXX v. XXXXXX
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 261
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that a wife cannot be denied maintenance merely because she is a graduate and capable of earning, especially when she is not gainfully employed.
Justice Jasgurpreet Singh Puri said, "mere fact that the respondent/wife is a graduate would not itself mean that she can be denied of the Right of Maintenance which is conferred upon her by way of a statutory provision unless the right to seek maintenance can be curtailed under the grounds which have been mentioned under Section 125 Cr.P.C. or when her income is so high as compared to the husband and it can be found that she is able to maintain herself, then in that situation she may not be entitled for grant of maintenance."
Title: Kanwar Pahul Singh v. State of Punjab and others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 262
Observing that the Punjab Government authorities had already initiated steps, including penalties and rewards for informers reporting incidents of death by use of banned Chinese Dor, the Punjab & Haryana High Court has disposed of the second PIL filed to curb the menace.
A division bench of Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sumeet Goel noted, "it is obvious that steps have already been taken by the concerned authorities by prescribing penalty as well as announcing a reward upto Rs. 25,000/- for informer, informing about an incident of injury or death due to use of Chinese Dor."
Title: XXXX v. XXXXX
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 263
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has said that if the husband is not able to earn the maintenance amount, it is his duty to earn more to pay the maintenance amount to wife and children.
The Court dismissed the husband's plea challenging the Family Court's maintenance order of ₹24,700 for his wife and two minor children, on the ground that he had other liabilities which made him unable to afford it.
Title: Sunil v. State of Haryana and others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 264
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has said that the absence of an Expert Member as part of the Appellate Authority under the Haryana Air and Water Act does not occasion any disadvantage to the person aggrieved approaching the Authority after the National Green Tribunal (NGT) has come into force.
The Court dismissed the plea challenging the notification issued by the Haryana Government amending the Haryana (Prevention and Control of Water Pollution) Rules, 1978 (Water Act) and the Haryana Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Rules, 1983 (Air Act), providing a single-member Appellate Authority.
Title: Suhail v. State of Haryana
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 265
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has said that while adjudicating the bail pleas, in cases concerning cybercrimes and online fraud, necessitates a "meticulous evaluation of several pivotal factors" and warrants a heightened degree of judicial circumspection.
The Court made the observations while rejecting an accused's anticipatory bail plea after finding a prima facie case against him in cyber crime involving Rs.25 lakhs.
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has said that while adjudicating the bail pleas, in cases concerning cybercrimes and online fraud, necessitates a "meticulous evaluation of several pivotal factors" and warrants a heightened degree of judicial circumspection.
The Court made the observations while rejecting an accused's anticipatory bail plea after finding a prima facie case against him in cyber crime involving Rs.25 lakhs.
Title: Navpreet Singh and others v. State of Punjab
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 266
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has clarified that under Section 210(1)(c) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), a Magistrate is not obligated to record the statement of any witness or call the aggrieved party before taking cognizance of an offence or issuing process.
For context, Section 210(c) BNSS states that the Magistrate can take cognizance of offence upon information received from any person other than a police officer, or upon his own knowledge, that such offence has been committed.
Harpreet Singh @ Hira vs. State of Punjab
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 267
The Punjab & Haryana High Court refused to suspend sentence of a man convicted for possessing 500 grams of heroin who had undergone custody of over 3 years, observing that drug menace, especially involving manufactured drugs, must be dealt with the "utmost strictness".
Justice Sumeet Goel said, "It is with profound concern that this Court takes judicial notice of the escalating drug menace that plagues our society, posing an insidious threat to public order, health, and the very fabric of the nation. While the scourge of substance abuse has long been a challenge, the proliferation and consumption of manufactured drugs, particularly cocaine and heroin, have exacerbated this crisis to an alarming degree, demanding an unequivocally stringent response from all pillars of the State, not least the Judiciary."
Title: DALJIT SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 268
The Punjab & Haryana High Court transferred a cheating case to another district as the accused persons were lawyers in the same Court where the plea was filed, and lawyers at the district court refused to accept a brief against them.
Justice Harpreet Singh Brar said, "The inability of a litigant to secure effective legal assistance due to reluctance caused by undue influence or creation of a hostile environment by the opposite party, especially where the accused is an Advocate practicing in the same Court, compromises the foundational principles of fair trial."
Title: Rajesh Kumar Gaba v. Central Bureau of Investigation
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 269
In a "deeply troubling conspiracy" case involving a Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP) and revenue officers accused of conspiring to forge documents to garb a trust property, the Punjab & Haryana High Court refused to grant anticipatory bail to the accused persons.
The petitioner was accused of conspiring with the officials including DSP to forge documents and submit fabricated records related to the alleged dissolution of a society.
Title: KULWINDER KAUR v. STATE OF PUNJAB
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 270
The Punjab & Haryana High Court allowed a regular bail plea of a wife accused of abetting suicide of her husband, observing that marital discord alone are not sufficient to constitute the offence.
It was alleged that the husband used to remain upset with his wife because she was allegedly involved with another man.
Title: MUSHTAQ AHMED v. STATE OF HARYANA
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 271
The Punjab & Haryana High Court granted bail to a doctor arrested for allegedly mocking Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Home Minister Amit Shah in an AI generated video after Operation Sindoor.
Mushtaq Ahmed, an orthopedic by profession, was booked under Sections 152 (Acts endangering sovereignty unity and integrity of India), 197(1)(d) (Imputations, assertions prejudicial to national integration) of BNS of 2023.
Title: Resident Welfare Association, Taksila Heights Sector 37-C, Gurugram v. State of Haryana and others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 272
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has ruled that street dogs picked up for sterilisation cannot be impounded indefinitely and must be released back to the same location from where they were taken, in accordance with the Animal Birth Control Rules, 2023 (2023 Rules) .
Justice Kuldeep Tiwari said, "the local authorities, have the power to keep the street dogs in the impounding compound, however, it does not empower them, to keep the dogs for an indefinite period."
Apex Court's Judgements Apply Retrospectively Unless Expressly Stated: Punjab & Haryana High Court
Title: Raj Kumar v. Rajender
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 273
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that judgments delivered by the Supreme Court apply retrospectively unless explicitly stated otherwise.
The case pertains to application of the recent M/s Celestium Financial vs. A. Gnanasekaran, wherein the Apex Court held that a complainant in a cheque dishonour case for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, is a "victim" within the meaning of Section 2(wa) of the CrPC [Section 2(y) of BNSS], who can file an appeal against acquittal.
Title: Constable Simranjeet Singh and others v. State of Punjab
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 274
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has dismissed a plea filed by police officials accused in the Lawrence Bishnoi interview from jail case, challenging the order permitting polygraph test on them.
FIR was lodged against jail officials after the High Court took suo moto cognisance of the viral interview of the ganster Lawrence Bishnoi given while he was in custody at Police Station CIA Staff in Punjab's Kharar.
Title: Atharv Sharma, Minor through his Natural Guardian & Father Sh. Kuldeep Sharma v. State of Punjab and others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 275
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that no changes can be permitted in an admission form once it has been submitted, particularly in the context of competitive examinations. The Court underscored that it is necessary to ensure "expeditious" conclusion of the selection process.
The Court dismissed the plea challenging the Admission Policy wherein the changes in the Admission Form after submission of the application was not allowed.
Title: Jaspal Singh @ Jassa v. State of Punjab and others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 276
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has directed that all parole applications must be decided by jail authorities within a strict timeframe of four months and in case of violation of the direction the convicts may initiate contempt proceedings against the concerned officials.
The Court underscored the plight of convicts who await responses to their parole applications, facing undue delays even in emergency situations and directed to decide such pleas "expeditiously."
Title: Union of India and others v. Ex. Sep. B Rama Krishna and another
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 277
Reaffirming the rights of military personnel, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that a soldier who sustained injuries while collecting kerosene oil during 'Operation Rakshak' is entitled to a war injury pension.
"Operation Rakshak" was the Army's counter insurgency and counter terrorism operation in Jammu and Kashmir which began in 1990.
Title: Ram Vinesh Saw v. State of Punjab and others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 278
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has said that the protection of life and personal liberty is paramount, regardless of disputes over the age of the individuals involved.
The observation was made while dismissing a plea seeking action against the runaway couple for allegedly falsely stating in the protection plea that the girl was a major at the time of marriage.
Kuldeep Singh v. State of Punjab
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 279
Observing that "detaining an accused indefinitely due to the sheer nonchalance of the prosecution amounts to an abuse of process," the Punjab & Haryana High Court granted bail in an NDPS Act case involving a commercial quantity.
The accused was in custody for 2 years and 3 months in a case wherein 1.540 kgs of Tramadol—classified as 'commercial quantity' under the NDPS Act was recovered. Since the charges were framed in March 2023, only 03 out of 16 witnesses cited by the prosecution were examined.
Title: Chanchal Mehbub Singh v. State of Punjab and others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 280
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has clarified that if an employee knowingly receives salary or financial benefits beyond their legal entitlement, such excess amounts can rightfully be recovered by the employer.
The court emphasised that the landmark State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (2015) judgment—which placed restrictions on recoveries from employees in certain circumstances—does not offer protection in such cases of conscious overpayment.
Title: Makul @ Mohamad Makul v. State of Haryana
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 281
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that an accused person's silence during the course of an investigation cannot be equated with non-cooperation as right against self-incrimination is constitutionally protected.
The Court refused to reject anticipatory bail in NDPS Act case on the ground the accused failed to disclose certain facts during the investigation.
Title: RAVNEET KAUR v. BAR COUNCIL OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AND ANR
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 282
The Punjab & Haryana High Court refused to entertain a lawyer's plea seeking direction to the Bar Council for the States to provide her financial assistance, for her being an "un-established advocate."
The advocate had sought reimbursement of medical expenses, house rent allowance, personal security officer, travel expenses and an aid to her.
Title: BIREM SINGH v. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION AND ANOTHER
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 283
In a development related to the 2017 Gurugram school murder case, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has sought a response from the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and the Haryana Government on a plea filed by a police officer accused of tampering with evidence against the trial court's summoning order.
Justice Manjari Nehru Kaul issued notice to the Haryana Government and the CBI and adjourned to July 28 as the respondent counsels sought time to file a reply.
Title: PINKY ALIAS PINCKY & ANOTHER v. THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL FOR FORFEITED PROPERTY & OTHERS
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 284
The Punjab and Haryana High Court today held that an appeal under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act cannot be dismissed merely because the accused, lodged in jail, was unable to sign the petition and the Appellate Court ought to decide on merits.
Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sanjiv Berry said, "Considering the facts and circumstances, it is deemed appropriate that when the remedy of appeal is provided under Section 68 (O) of the NDPS Act and the petitioners have already filed the appeal before the designated forum, the Appellate Authority ought to have decided the appeal on merits, rather than throwing it away on account of the aforesaid defects especially when the removal of same was not within the control of the petitioner No.2, being lodged in Jail."
Title: Colonel Pushpendra Bath v UT Chandigarh & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 285
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has ordered the Central Bureau of Investigation to take over the probe into a Colonel's assault allegations against the Punjab Police.
This comes after the Court noted that the Special Investigation Team (SIT) entrusted to probe the case is "creating loopholes to give benefit of doubt to accused Police Officers".
Title: BHISHAM KINGER V/S STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 286
Raising concerns over the lack of essential medical equipment in district hospitals, the Punjab & Haryana High Court has asked States and UT Administration to submit a detailed affidavit outlining its policy on basic medical infrastructure.
Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sanjiv Berry said, "What is the medical policy of state as to basic medical infrastructure at every district hospital."
Title: Suresh Chand v. State of Punjab
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 287
The Punjab and Haryana High Court, while granting bail in a case under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, observed that it is highly improbable for a reasonable or prudent person to carry 2 kilograms of contraband openly in a transparent polythene bag.
The Accused was in custody for a period of over 2 years, 10 months and after framing of charges in May 2023 out of total 13 prosecution witnesses, only 05 witnesses were examined.
Title: Harjinder Singh alias Raj alias Rajinder Singh v. State of Punjab
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 288
Facilitating a fair opportunity for the accused to defend themselves can be a valid ground for granting bail, observed the Punjab and Haryana High Court while allowing bail in an attempt to murder case.
In the present case, the Court granted regular bail to an accused in attempt to murder case considering that all prosecution witnesses were examined except one witness, namely, the government doctor.
Title: Jitender Kumar v. State of Haryana and others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 289
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that a suspension order against a government employee continues to remain in effect until it is expressly revoked by the competent authority in accordance with Haryana Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules and Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Employees (Punishment and Appeal) Regulations, 2019.
Title: Paramjit Singh v. State of Punjab & Ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 290
In a stern rebuke to the Punjab Government, the High Court observed that the State had misused the judicial process by blatantly violating service rules and attempting to justify its actions through a lengthy affidavit. Taking strong exception to the conduct, the Court imposed a cost of ₹1 lakh on the government.
The Punjab Government authorities issued a chargesheet against a Public Works Department officer for an alleged incident that occurred 11 years prior to the date of superannuation. This is in violation of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, which bar the issuance of a chargesheet for the incident which is more that four years old after superannuation.
Title: RXXX v. State of Haryana
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 291
Suspecting child trafficking networks, "which now-a days are actively prevalent in the weaker sections of the society", the Punjab & Haryana High Court refused to grant regular bail to a woman accused of giving minor child to men for committing sexual assault.
Justice Namit Kumar noted, "there is sufficient and ample documentary evidence against the petitioner, indicating her involvement in luring and exploiting the minor victim girl and by facilitating and aiding the accused persons in perpetrating the heinous crime of rape upon her."
Title: Uggar Singh v. State of Punjab and others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 292
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has clarified that for the purpose of determining the stamp duty payable on a sale deed, it is the market value of the property at the time of execution of the sale deed—and not the agreement to sell—which is relevant.
Justice Anil Kshetarpal and Justice Rohit Kapoor said, "For the purpose of determining the amount of stamp duty on conveyance deed/ sale deed, the market rate prevailing at the time of execution of sale deed would be relevant and not when the parties entered into agreement to sell."
Title: RAKHI v. STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 293
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has flagged an instance of "judicial indiscipline" after an Additional Sessions Judge passed two distinct orders in the same case on the same day. Suggesting "thorough investigation", the Court has directed the Registrar General to put the file before the concerned Administrative judge.
The Additional Session Judge of Faridabad in a forgery case first orally pronounced an order granting interim-anticipatory bail, but later, passed an order on the same day granting absolute pre-arrest bail.
Gurmeet Ram Rahim Withdraws From P&H High Court Plea For Suspension Of Sentence In Rape Case
Title: Baba Gurmeet Singh @ Maharaj Gurmeet Singh @ Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh v. Central Bureau of Investigation
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 294
Dera Sacha Sauda chief Gurmeet Ram Rahim on Tuesday withdrew from the Punjab and Haryana High Court his application seeking suspension of sentence in the 2017 rape case.
The self-styled godman was convicted by the Special CBI Court, Panchkula in 2017 under Sections 376 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of twenty years for committing offences on two women followers.
Title: Jaswinder Singh alias Kala v. State of Punjab
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 295
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has explained the pre-requisite of granting bail under NDPS Act in case of commercial quantity wherein one of the conditions is that the accused is "not likely to commit any offence while on bail."
Section 37 states that bail should not be granted to an accused in case of commercial quantity unless the accused is able to satisfy twin conditions i.e. reasonable ground for believing that the accused is not guilty of such an offence and that the accused would not commit an offence or is not likely to commit an offence, if granted bail.
Title: BARKHA BANSAL VS. STATE OF U.T., CHANDIGARH & OTHERS
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 296
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has reiterated that the statement of a person summoned by the Directorate General of Goods and Services Tax Intelligence (DGGI) officials must be recorded during official working hours and in the presence of their counsel. The Court also observed that the summoned person has the right to request CCTV footage of the proceedings.
The developments comes in case of illegal detention of 30-hours, wherein a businessman was kept in in the zonal office overnight and subjected to prolonged interrogation.
Title: XXXX v. XXXX
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 297
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has dismissed a husband's plea seeking annulment of his marriage on the ground that his wife had allegedly concealed a pre-marital affair.
It was the husband's case that, prior to their marriage, during a separate meeting, he had categorically asked the wife whether she was in a relationship, to which she had denied. However, after their marriage, a video was posted on a social media platform allegedly showing her in a compromising position with another man.
Title: Surender v. State of Haryana and others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 298
Calling it a “classical case of power abuse,” the Punjab and Haryana High Court has imposed a cost of ₹50,000 on the Haryana Government for denying appointment to a candidate despite his acquittal in a criminal case. The Court noted that the candidate was compelled to approach the court in three separate rounds of litigation to assert his rightful claim.
The candidate was denied the appointment to the post of Constable. During verification process the authorities submitted that an FIR is pending.
Title: KANU SHARMA V/S HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AND OTHERS
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 299
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has dismissed a petition challenging the eligibility criterion requiring lawyers to have been engaged in 50 cases per year in last preceding 3 years, in order to appear for the Superior Judicial Services Examination in both states for the post of Additional District Judge.
The plea had challenged Rule11(bb) of the Haryana Superior Judicial Service Rules, 2007 and a similar rule in Punjab.
Title: XXXX v. XXX
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 300
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has said that the Family Court established under the Family Court Act do not have jurisdiction to decide the validity of Adoption Deed.
A bench of Justice Anil Kshetarpal and Justice Rohit Kapoor said, "Parliament in its wisdom, did not vest the Family Courts with the jurisdiction to adjudicate the matters pertaining to adoption, while conspicuously, it has inter-alia conferred jurisdiction qua matters specified under Sub- Section (1) Explanation (g) to such courts, which pertains to a suit or proceedings in relation to the guardianship of the person or the custody of, or access to any minor."
High Court Dismisses Plea Seeking CBI Probe Into Alleged Fake Encounter By Punjab Police
Title: Gurtej Singh Dhillon v. State of Punjab and others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 301
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has dismissed a plea as withdrawn by the petitioner, seeking a CBI probe into an alleged fake encounter carried out by the Punjab Police.
The police party was allegedly the same as the one accused of assaulting Col. Pushpinder Singh Bath and his son.
Title: SXXXX v. State of Punjab
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 302
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has quashed an FIR filed by former in-laws of a man citing it as an abuse of the legal process. The court observed that the dowry harassment case, lodged seven months after the couple's divorce and mutual settlement, lacked merit and appeared to be a misuse of the law.
Justice Jasgurpreet Singh Puri opined, "that lodging of the present FIR after about 7 months of the dissolution of marriage in USA will be nothing but pure abuse of process of law."
Title: Arshad v. State of Haryana and Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 303
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has upheld the dismissal of a police officer who absented himself for more than 300 days from duty, without leave to visit a tantrik (exorcist) for treatment of black magic.
The officer produced certain medical records to justify his absence; however, some of the documents pertained to treatment for black magic by a tantrik (exorcist).
Title: Jaswant and others v. State of Haryana and others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 304
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has dismissed a plea seeking ₹1 crore in compensation for the kin of the deceased in the 2010 Mirchpur Dalit killing case.
For context, In 2010, 254 families of the Balmiki community had to flee Haryana's Mirchpur as a result of the caste-based violence.
Title:Niyaz etc. v. State of Haryana
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 305
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has acquitted three men–convicted of murder by the trial court, citing the absence of a recovered dead body and insufficient proof of the crime.
A driver hired by three men for a journey to Punjab to Uttarakhand went missing with the car. Later the vehicle was recovered from Bihar, but the driver remained untraceable. During investigation, accused Niyaz, Imran and others confessed to having murdered Gian Chand and throwing his body into the Agra canal but the body was never recovered.
Title: XXX v. XXX
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 306
The Punjab & Haryana High Court refused to quash a rape case under POCSO Act on the basis of compromise between the victim and the accused.
The man was accused of raping a 13-year-old victim. Allegedly the victim was enticed away by the petitioner and she stayed with him and was recovered after four months by the police from the custody of the accused. The offences involved in the present case are Sections 363, 366-A, 376, 34 IPC and Sections 4 and 12 of POCSO Act.
Title: XXXXX v. XXXXX [CRR-1165-2025]
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 307
In a significant observation against stereotyping marginalized communities, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that it is arbitrary to assume that individuals living in slum areas are more likely to come into contact with criminals.
The Court made the observation while granting bail to a Child In Conflict With Law (CICL) in an NDPS Act case involving 39.7 kg Ganja- commercial quantity, wherein, out of the maximum sentence of three years, he had spent two years in custody.
Title: Suresh Kumar Sharma (deceased) through LRs v. State of Haryana and Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 308
In a significant interpretation of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that criminal proceedings unrelated to an employee's official duties cannot be used as a ground to withhold gratuity.
The deceased employee's family was denied gratuity because appeal against acquittal in a criminal case was pending before the Supreme Court. The Court directed authorities to release gratuity and regularise the family pension of a deceased employee within three months, along with 7.5 per cent annual interest, from the date of petition filing.
Title: Kangana Ranaut v. Mahinder Kaur
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 309
The Punjab & Haryana High Court refused to quash summoning order filed by actress and BJP MP Kangana Ranaut in defamation case filed over remarks made on 2021 farmers protest.
Ranaut had posted on Twitter that an elderly woman protester, Mahinder Kaur, was paid to participate in the agitation.
Title: Vikas Tomar @ Vikash Tomar v State of Haryana
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 310
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has refused to grant anticipatory bail to a man accused of replacing the national flag with a saffron flag atop a mosque.
The FIR was lodged under Sections 299, 3(5), 61(2) 196, 238 of the BNS and Section 2 of the Prevention of Insult to National Honours Act, 1971 at a Gurugram's police station.
Title: Col. Sukhwinder Singh Dhillon v. State of Punjab
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 311
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has strongly criticized a trial court for showing “unreasonable leniency” in a cyber fraud case, emphasizing that cases involving senior citizens deserve urgent and prioritized handling.
Title: CHIRAG KUMAR SARDANA v. STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 312
The Punjab & Haryana High Court underscored the delicate balance between justice and compassion by permitting a sportsman facing fraud allegations to travel abroad for a shooting camp.
Chirag Kumar Sardana is accused in a Fraud and Arms Act case. His passport was released by the Sessions Court only for a limited period, which prevented him from participating in international shooting camps at Europe and USA.
Title: Manish Kumar v. Directorate General, Goods & Service Tax Intelligence, Zonal Unit, Ludhiana
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 313
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has expressed concern over the sluggish pace of trials and the lack of convictions in Goods and Services Tax (GST) evasion cases and flagged abrupt arrests of accused by the authorities, "driven by some inexplicable urgency rather than necessity."
The Court granted bail in an alleged case involving defrauding the state exchequer of Rs. 107 crore, as input tax credit by generating fake invoices from fake firms.
No Power To Transfer Case From One High Court To Another: Punjab & Haryana High Court
Title: RAVNEET KAUR v. PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT, CHANDIGARH AND ANOTHER.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 314
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has held that it does not have power to transfer a case from one High Court to another.
Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sanjiv Berry said, "So far as the prayer of transferring the aforesaid three cases to any other High Court is concerned, the same cannot be granted since this Court is not vested with any such power; the petitioner for this purpose is free to approach the appropriate Forum."
Harcharan Singh vs. State of Punjab
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 315
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has clarified that an application for suspension of sentence filed along with criminal revision petition challenging conviction in a criminal case is maintainable before the High Court, even if the convict has not surrendered post-conviction.
Justice Sumeet Goel said, "A criminal revision petition against the judgments of conviction (as also an application for suspension of sentence, etc.) is maintainable before this High Court, without the petitioner-accused having surrendered or being in custody, in the absence of any rule in the extant Punjab and Haryana High Court Rules/Orders proscribing such maintainability."
Title: Payal Chaudhary v. KAP Sinha IAS and others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 316
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has imposed a cost of Rs. 50,000 on a litigant for engaging in forum shopping and filing a meritless contempt petition in a civil dispute
The development comes in a contempt plea alleging that the authorities have disobeyed Supreme Court's ruling in Rajeeb Kalita Vs. Union of India and others by disconnecting the water supply of the petitioner.
Denying Maternity Leave To Contractual Employee Violates Article 14: Punjab & Haryana High Court
Title: Harpreet Kaur v. State of Punjab and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 317
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has said that denying maternity leave to a contractual employee under the Maternity Benefit Act would amount to discrimination on grounds of nature of their employment and thereby violates Article 14 of the Constitution which guarantees equal protection of law.
Title: Sikander Singh v. ED
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 318
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that Section 223 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Suraksha Sanhita 2023, which grants the accused right to be heard before cognizance is taken in complaint cases, can apply even to cases instituted prior to July 1, 2024—the date when the BNSS came into force.
Title: AMIT RANA @ MEETA V/S STATE OF HARYANA
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 319
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that a downloaded copy of a bail or suspension of sentence order is sufficient for securing the release of an accused.
The court clarified when the certified copy of the order is not immediately sent by the Registry, the downloaded copy must be accepted by the Court before whom bail bond is furnished.
Title: RANJIT SINGH GILL V/S STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 320
The Punjab & Haryana High Court today refused to grant interim relief of stay on arrest to former Shiromani Akali Dal (SAD) member Ranjit Singh Gill.
It was alleged that Gill has been maliciously targeted by the Punjab Vigilance Bureau, solely on account of his political affiliation, immediately after he joined Bharatiya Janata Party (B.J.P.) on August 01.
Title: LAKHWINDER SINGH @ LAKHU VS STATE OF PUNJAB
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 321
The Punjab and Haryana High Court strongly criticised the gross misconduct and negligent attitude of lower-rank police officers in handling criminal investigations.
The development occurred during the hearing of a pre-arrest bail plea filed by a man accused of injuring a pregnant woman. The Court noted that although the incident occurred on June 16, the Investigation Officer moved an application seeking medical opinion on July 27 and the complainant's medical report had not yet been received.
Title: Sandeep Monga vs. State of Haryana and others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 322
The Punjab and Haryana High Court imposed a cost of ₹10,000 on an Investigating Officer (IO) who failed to follow Court's direction to remain present along with the case diary.
The Court was hearing a protection plea against Police Officers who allegedly withdrawn over Rs. 6.4 lakhs from petitioner's account and arrested him in a cyber crime case, without following the due process. During the last hearing the Court had summoned the IO of the case.
Title: Gurmeet Singh v. State of Punjab
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 323
In a significant ruling, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has clarified that a Magistrate or the Sessions Court, as the case may be, retains the competence to grant default bail to an accused, even when a regular bail application is pending before a Sessions Court or the High Court.
The development comes while hearing a regular bail plea wherein during the pendency of the application, the accused completed 3 months and default bail was granted by the Magistrate under Section 167(2) CrPC, which corresponds to Section 187(3) BNSS.
Title: Kapil Saini v. State of Haryana & Ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 324
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held the Haryana Staff Selection Commission (HSSC) prima facie guilty of contempt for failing to comply with its order directing the biometric verification of candidates appearing in competitive exams.
Taking serious note of the non-compliance, the Court has asked the Commission to recall the result declared without conducting the mandated verification fir the post of Junior Engineer (Civil)
'Child's Right To Know Parentage Overrides Parent's Right To Privacy': Punjab & Haryana High Court
Title: AXXX v. XXXX
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 325
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has upheld an order mandating a DNA test while emphasizing that a man's right to privacy can't override a child's right to know their biological parentage.
The observation was made while dismissing a petition that challenged a trial court's decision allowing a child's plea for the comparison of his DNA sample with that of the man he claims to be his father. However, the Court modified the order with modification of conducting of the test, but without any compel or assistance of the police.
Title: XXXX v. XXXX
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 326
In a strong rebuke to arbitrary administrative actions, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has imposed a cost of Rs.10,000 on an Inspector General of Prisons for rejecting a parole application without proper application of mind
Title: Vasdev Sinh v. State of Punjab and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 327
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has imposed a cost of ₹50,000 on the Punjab government for unjustly withholding the retiral benefits of a former employee based on an alleged incident that occurred 14 years prior to his retirement.
It is pertinent to note that the Punjab Civil Services Rules (applicable in this case), forbids initiating disciplinary proceedings after an employee has retired, if the matter pertains to an event that happened over four years before the date of initiating the proceedings.
Title: THE STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS v. XXX
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 328
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has upheld a compensation of ₹20,000 awarded to a woman for a failed sterilisation procedure, observing that she had not been informed about the possibility of failure, which ultimately led to the birth of her sixth child.
Justice Harpreet Kaur Jeewan said, “The consent of the respondent-plaintiff (woman) should have been obtained after giving information about the pros and cons of the said operation and this fact should have been clearly informed to the respondent-plaintiff that there are chances of failure of the said operation to the extent of 0.3%.”
Title: TV TODAY NETWORK LIMITED v. STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 329
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has refused to quash a defamation case filed against news channel Aaj Tak for allegedly linking a businessman Gopal Kumar Goyal, to the murder of a BJP leader and actor, Sonali Phogat in 2022.
The TV Today Network Limited had filed the plea challenging judicial magistrate's order directing the police to register a NCR and subsequently chargesheet filed on Goyal's complaint.
Title: FEDERATION OF SEED INDUSTRY OF INDIA v. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 330
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has quashed an order issued by the Punjab Government banning the use of hybrid seeds, holding that the state lacked the authority to impose such a prohibition.
However, the Court upheld the administrative order which imposed prohibition only upon the use of those kinds or varieties of hybrid paddy seeds in the State of Punjab which are non-notified varieties.
Title: Naresh v. State of Haryana
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 331
The Punjab and Haryana High Court rejected the bail plea of the prime accused Naresh, the main accused in the case concerning the alleged brutal lynching of a 16-year-old boy, Junaid Khan, in June 2017.
The accused Naresh is charged under Sections 302, 307, 323, 324 and 34 IPC and Section 145 Railway Act. The Court noted that two of the eye witnesses are yet to be examined.
Title: Dr. Amit Kumar Singal v. Central Bureau of Investigation
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 332
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has granted bail to an Indian Revenue Service (IRS) officer accused of demanding a bribe of ₹45 lakh in exchange for settling an income tax notice, along with a co-accused.
Justice Sumeet Goel noted, "The petitioner was arrested on 01.06.2025 whereinafter investigation in the case has been completed and charge-sheet/challan has been filed by the CBI on 30.07.2025. Total 19 prosecution witnesses have been cited and none has been examined till date. It is, thus, indubitable that the culmination of the trial will take its own time in view of the voluminous evidence and number of witnesses and thus, keeping the petitioner behind the bars for an indefinite period would not serve any substantial purpose once the investigation is complete."
Punjab & Haryana High Court Explains When Accused Can Directly Approach HC For Bail
Title: Dr. Amit Kumar Singal v. Central Bureau of Investigation
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 333
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has explained that an accused person can directly approach the High Court for bail only under "exceptional circumstances."
Justice Sumeet Goel elucidated, "There may be multitude of factors which may result in exceptional circumstance(s) enabling an accused to file, maintain and pursue his regular plea before the High Court straightaway. For instance; the incident/crime involved may have caused tangible circumstances, adverse to the petitioner-accused in approaching the Sessions Court; there may be perceptible difficulty for the petitioner-accused to approach the Sessions Court vis.-a-vis. the High Court; the plea may be involving complicated question(s) of law etc. Needless to say that these factors are merely illustrative in nature and not exhaustive."
Title: Bachan Kaur v. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. and others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 334
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has strongly criticized the conduct of Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd (UHBVN) authorities who equated disability sustained by an employee during service with “inefficiency,” calling their approach “terribly apathetic.”
The Court also pulled up officials for asking a widow to prove that her husband had sustained injuries while on duty nearly 40 years ago.
Title: KANWAR NARESH SINGH SODHI v. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 335
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has observed that failure of judicial officers and authorities to complete execution proceedings within six months—as mandated by the Supreme Court in Rahul S. Shah vs. Jinendra Kumar Gandhi—"shall be treated as contempt of the said judgment."
The Apex Court in Rahul S. Shah case while issuing directions to reduce delays in the execution proceedings, observed that an Executing Court must dispose of the Execution Proceedings within six months from the date of filing, which may be extended only by recording reasons in writing for such delay.
Title: Rahul Bundela @ Rahul v. State of Haryana and another
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 336
Granting bail to a man booked under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, the Punjab and Haryana High Court observed that since the accused himself belongs to a deprived Scheduled Caste community, it is questionable whether the provisions of the Act would be applicable in the given circumstances.
Justice Manisha Batra noted, "He was arrested after a gap of 425 days after registration of FIR. A perusal of the contents of FIR reveals that the allegation that the victim was called by the name of his caste have not been specifically attributed to him. Even otherwise, he is falling under Deprived Scheduled Caste category and as such, it is to be considered as to whether the provisions of SC/ST Act are applicable against him or not?."
Title: GURNAM SINGH ALIAS GAMA ALIAS GAMMA v. STATE OF PUNJAB
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 337
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that it is inappropriate for a medical officer to recommend that jail authorities allow an inmate to visit his ailing mother.
Justice Sanjay Vashisth said, "Petitioner himself has appended his mother's medical certificate dated 09.07.2025 issued by one Dr. Vikram Bhatia, and it is quite surprising that even the treating doctor himself has requested the jail authorities to allow the petitioner to be his mother's side during the time of her treatment."
Title: Tejinder Singh Bhathal and others v. State of Punjab and another
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 338
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that the Punjab State Power Corporation Limited (PSPCL), being a statutory body, is well within its rights to prescribe a cut-off date for the implementation of the 5th Pay Commission recommendations.
Justice Harpreet Singh Brar said, "The PSPCL being a statutory corporation is entitled to prescribe a cut-off date for implementation of the recommendations of the Fifth Pay Commission, in view of its financial health. The inability of the Corporation to extend benefits of enhanced pensionary benefits has been demonstrated by relying on cogent material and as such, is not arbitrary in nature."
Title: SONU ALIAS AMAR v. STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 339
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has observed that furlough is not a matter of right and can be denied in the rarest of rare cases.
Furlough and parole envisage a short-term temporary release from custody.
The difference is, while parole is granted for the prisoner to meet a specific exigency, furlough may be granted after a stipulated number of years have been served without any reason as per the relevant policy.
Title: Asif v. State of Haryana
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 340
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has observed that the cow holds a unique and special status in India, noting that its slaughter can have grave repercussions on public peace when it offends the deeply held beliefs of a significant population group.
It was alleged that the petitioner, Aasif, was transporting two cows to Rajasthan for slaughtering, in violation of the Haryana Gauvansh Sanrakshan and Gausamvardhan Act and the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act.
Title: AU SMALL FINANCE BANK v. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 341
Taking serious note of the mounting Non-Performing Assets (NPAs) and their adverse impact on the public exchequer, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has observed that District Magistrates cannot afford to delay on taking and handing possession of secured assets to the creditors under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act).
Title: XXXX v. XXXX
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 342
Reaffirming the seriousness and gravity of offences under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that such crimes strike against public morality.
The Court rejected the anticipatory bail of a man, accused of committing rape on a minor, an offence under Sections 137 (kidnapping), 96 (procuration of child), 3(5) (common intention), 64(1) (rape) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Section 4 (penetrative sexual assault) of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.
Title: Union of India and others v. Sher Singh and another
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 343
In a scathing judgment, the Punjab and Haryana High Court criticized the Army authorities for presenting a “sorry state of affairs” by "manipulating facts" to deny regularisation benefits to employees who had rendered over three decades of service.
The Union Government claimed that the post for which regularisation was sought was abolished at the time when the CAT has directed for the same, however the same was not found to be true by the Court.
Title: XXXX v. XXXX
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 344
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has set aside the conviction of a man in a rape case filed by a married woman who alleged sexual assault based on a false promise of marriage.
Justice Shalini Singh Nagpal said, “When a fully matured married woman, consents to sexual intercourse on a promise of marriage and continues indulging in such activity, it is merely an act of promiscuity, immorality and reckless disregard of the institution of marriage, not an act of inducement by misconception of fact. Section 90 of IPC cannot be applied in any such case to pardon the act of a woman and the criminal liability on another."
Title: ASI Dilbag Singh v. State of Union Territory, Chandigarh.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 345
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has granted pre-arrest bail to the personal security officer (PSO) of a sitting High Court judge, who allegedly attempted to open fire on a court officer during a heated altercation.
The Chief Court Officer, Dalvinder Singh, filed a complaint stating that during a heated argument, ASI Dilbagh Singh pulled out his gun to open fire, but the bullet was not shot as a result of a failed attempt.
Title: RANJIT SINGH GILL v. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 346
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has said that no blanket protection can be granted to an accused, requiring the investigating agency to serve prior notice before arrest, as the same will amount to curtailing its authority against a person alleged to have committed a non-bailable offence.
Title: TULSI RAM MISHRA v. S. RADHA CHAUHAN & ANR
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 347
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has imposed a cost of ₹50,000 on the Punjab Government for repeatedly seeking adjournments in a contempt petition.
The case pertains to a contempt petition filed by Tulsi Ram Mishra, alleging non-compliance with the order passed in September 2023, directing the state to forward all documents to the Centre for obtaining sanction to prosecute Punjab's former Chief Secretary Vijay Kumar Janjua, within a stipulated period. Janjua was allegedly caught red-handed while accepting illegal gratification of Rs. 2 lakh.
Title: Farida Praveen alias Shikha Gaur v. State of Haryana
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 348
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has granted bail to an undocumented female migrant accused in a fraud case, allowing her release on the condition of furnishing bail bond to maximum amount of ₹10,000 in the form of fixed deposit or on personal bond if she fails to arrange surety within 7 days.
It was alleged that Farida Praveen is an illegal migrant and prepared Aadhar Card, Voter Id and PAN Card on the basis of fake documents and also changed her name as Shikha Gaur. Hence, the FIR was registered under 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC and Section 14-A of the Foreigners Act 1946.
Title: Seema v. State of Punjab
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 349
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has recommended that investigating agencies share the gist of their findings against foreign nationals accused under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act involving significant drug quantity, with the Ministry of External Affairs.
The bench noted that, "the Court's dockets have ever-increasing cases under the NDPS Act, 1985, and these days, the trend of heroin being smuggled by the Indian Drugs Mafia from Pakistan's border is also more noticeable."
Title: Veerpal Kaur v. State of Punjab and others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 350
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has observed that a habeas corpus petition cannot serve as a substitute for custody proceedings under the guardianship laws like Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act. It clarified that High Court can intervene only when it is clear case of illegality.
Title: Jaswinder Singh v. Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd and others.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 351
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that an employee who acquires a disability during the course of service is entitled to be considered for promotion under the physically handicapped (PH) quota.
The petitioner's promotion under the PH category was denied by the State authority on the grounds that he had acquired the disability during his service and not at the time of appointment.
Title: The Union of India and others v. Ex Sep Sham Singh & another
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 352
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has criticized the Central Government for denying disability benefits to a soldier who sustained serious injuries during an explosion in the 1971 Indo-Pak war.
The Court rejected the Union Government's petition challenging Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT)'s order whereby the deceased soldier's wife was granted pensionary benefits.
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.