Latest Punjab Haryana Hc updates from LegalRepublic.in.
Justice Virinder Aggarwal granted regular bail to Sandeep Kumar, finding no prima facie basis to treat a security-cover letter addressed to him as an official secret under the 1923 Act.
The High Court found that Lovkesh Kumar was picked up at 5.38 a.m. on 11 August 2024 but shown arrested only after midnight, casting doubt on the prosecution's account.
Justice Sumeet Goel declined pre-arrest bail under Section 482 BNSS, holding that corruption by a police officer misusing investigative authority demands custodial interrogation and cannot be resolved at bail stage.
Shiv Kumar was 16 years old when convicted under IPC Sections 363, 366-A and 376. A 2025 age enquiry proved he was below 18 on the date of the offence in 1999, entitling him to the lighter sentencing regime of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000.
The court found passport records, immigration data, and WhatsApp video calls with close relatives sufficient to conclude that Devinder Kaur is alive and residing in Canada.
Justice Subhas Mehla held that dressing a pet dog in Krishna's attire for Janmashtami, posted as a WhatsApp status, disclosed no offence under Section 298 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
Justice Tribhuvan Dahiya dismisses former minister Sunder Sham Arora's plea for de novo investigation by an independent agency in a Vigilance Bureau bribery case.
Justice Vikram Aggarwal found the Will riddled with suspicious circumstances, including a four-year-old beneficiary said to have "served" the testator, and an original document that could not be traced.
Justice Kuldeep Tiwari held that IIT Ropar acted with "lightning speed" to accept a PhD student's resignation without addressing her harassment complaints, making the resignation non-voluntary.
Punjab & Haryana High Court sets aside two concurrent decrees, holds the State cannot perfect title over private land by adverse possession and directs compensation at fair market price.
A Division Bench applied the twin-prong test under Section 43-D(5) of the UAPA to deny bail to an accused who allegedly supplied weapons used in the killing of Comrade Balwinder Singh Sandhu.
Ten petitioners who failed the HCS preliminary examination challenged seven disputed questions; Justice Jagmohan Bansal found no glaring error and declined to substitute expert opinion.
Justice Deepak Gupta dismissed the anticipatory bail plea of an advocate accused of fabricating a Punjab and Haryana High Court bail order and cheating complainants of over ₹10.92 lakh.
Justice Harpreet Singh Brar held that the pro-rata methodology introduced by EPFO's 2024 internal e-mail and 2025 circular has no basis in the Employees' Pension Scheme, 1995 and cannot override statutory rules.
The Punjab & Haryana High Court held that a bomb explosion aboard the Janta Express in 1992 constitutes an 'accident' under Section 124 of the Railways Act, 1989, making the Union of India liable to pay compensation to the families of five deceased passengers.
Justice Harkesh Manuja holds that the Reference Authority under Section 64 of the 2013 Act retains full independent power to assess market value beyond Section 26 parameters.
The club occupies 132 acres of prime public land and pays just 0.255% of assessed rent; Justice Kuldeep Tiwari dismisses its 14-year-old challenge to a CIC order.
Justice Sudeepti Sharma dismissed a contempt petition as an abuse of process after the very order alleged to have been disobeyed had already been set aside by a Division Bench, and imposed ₹50,000 costs on the petitioners.
Justice Sandeep Moudgil found no money trail to the petitioner, noted the Managing Director was not arraigned, and held continued detention served no purpose.
Justice Vinod S. Bhardwaj dismissed a regular bail petition, finding the accused's alleged role in a scheme that extracted Rs 28.5 lakhs by falsely claiming access to judges was not peripheral.
Justice Namit Kumar held that Note 1 and Note 2 below Rule 6.17(4) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules do not apply when only one widow survives the deceased government employee.
Justice Sumeet Goel affirmed concurrent conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, holding that an admitted cheque signature triggers the presumption of liability and a bald security-cheque plea cannot rebut it.
The High Court set aside a Gurugram magistrate's summoning order under Section 304-A IPC, holding the trial court violated its own direction to obtain a PGI Chandigarh expert report before proceeding.
