Nominal Index [ Citations: 2023 LiveLaw (PH) 208- 2023 LiveLaw (PH) 216] X v. State of Haryana & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (PH) 208 Sukhpreet Kaur v. State of Punjab 2023 LiveLaw (PH) 209Kapil v. State of Haryana and others 2023 LiveLaw (PH) 210Parveen Kumar v. State of Haryana 2023 LiveLaw (PH) 211 Kuldeep Singh v. State of Punjab and another 2023 LiveLaw (PH) 212The Mahabir Education...
Nominal Index [ Citations: 2023 LiveLaw (PH) 208- 2023 LiveLaw (PH) 216]
X v. State of Haryana & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (PH) 208
Sukhpreet Kaur v. State of Punjab 2023 LiveLaw (PH) 209
Kapil v. State of Haryana and others 2023 LiveLaw (PH) 210
Parveen Kumar v. State of Haryana 2023 LiveLaw (PH) 211
Kuldeep Singh v. State of Punjab and another 2023 LiveLaw (PH) 212
The Mahabir Education Welfare Society v. The State of Haryana and others 2023 LiveLaw (PH) 213
Mohit Bedi v. State of Punjab 2023 LiveLaw (PH) 214
X v. State of Punjab & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (PH) 215
Guru Nanak Vidya Bhandar Trust, Daryaganj, New Delhi v. State of Punjab and others 2023 LiveLaw (PH) 216
Judgements/Orders
Title: X v. State of Haryana & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (PH) 208
Observing that abortion at such an advanced stage would "not only endanger the life of the minor victim but is likely to premature delivery of child", the Punjab & Haryana High Court has refused to direct termination of 33 weeks old pregnancy of a minor rape victim.
The Medical board also opined that it will not be safe and would be life threatening to the mother due to advance gestational age and considering that she is a minor.
While noting that on the date of filing of the petition the pregnancy is already "more than 33 weeks", Justice Vinod S. Bhardwaj said, "The passage of time and delay on the part of the petitioner in approaching this Court has only further aggravated the said aspect. There is no material available on record with this Court on the basis whereof this Court may differ with the opinion expressed by the Medical Board. Directing medical termination of this pregnancy at such an advanced stage would not only endanger life of the minor victim but is also likely to lead to a pre-mature delivery of the unborn child who may further suffer from abnormality as a result of such attempt."
Title: Sukhpreet Kaur v. State of Punjab
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (PH) 209
The Punjab & Haryana High Court granted bail to a woman who had been detained in 2022 under the stringent Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, based on the disclosure statement of her husband.
Vijay Singh stated that his wife, Sukhpreet Kaur, supported him in the illegal activities. Singh in his disclosure statement said that he collected a parcel containing a hand grenade, a pistol, and other explosives from the border area. Kaur was at the advance stage of pregnancy when booked under the Act and delivered the child in the prison.
While noting that no incriminating material can be found against Kaur, the Court said there is no prima facie evidence to implicate her for the alleged offence under Sections 10, 13,18 & 20 of the UAPA.
A division bench of Justice Anupinder Singh Grewal and Justice Lalit Batra said, "We are conscious of the fact that the provisions of the UAPA are stringent. At the same time. it is necessary for the Court to carefully scrutinize and peruse the material against an accused."
Case Title: Kapil v. State of Haryana and others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (PH) 210
The Punjab & Haryana High Court recently granted parole to a man convicted for murder and sentenced to life imprisonment observing that likelihood of absconding of the prisoner is not a sufficient ground to reject temporary release.
A division bench of Justice Lisa Gill and Justice Ritu Tagore emphasized that the mere likelihood of absconding while on parole was not a sufficient ground for denial, as it did not indicate a threat to the security of the state or public order.
Case Title: Parveen Kumar v. State of Haryana
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (PH) 211
The Punjab & Haryana High Court recently dismissed a plea to preserve the call records of a police officer who arrested the petitioner in the NDPS Act observing that for the possibility of creating evidence in favour of the accused, it cannot go to the extent of breaching privacy of a police officer.
Justice Rajbir Sehrawat added that just to give credence to the petitioner's assumption, the court cannot go into a roving inquiry.
"Even if the assumption of the petitioner is taken to be having some substance, then also it is not necessary that when the police had gone to arrest the petitioner at some alleged other place, then they would necessarily be having their own mobile phones with them. Therefore just for the possibility of creating any evidence in favour of the petitioner; court cannot go to the extent of breaching the privacy of the police official qua use of their mobile phones," said the Court.
Title: Kuldeep Singh v. State of Punjab and another
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (PH) 212
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has made it clear that availing ones' legal remedy would not amount to the offence of abetment to suicide in absence of any specific allegation of harassment or instigation.
The deceased was convicted in a cheque bounce case filed by the petitioners and others under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, however in a suicide note he alleged that he was falsely implicated by the petitioner along with other co-accused.
Justice Jasjit Singh Bedi said, "...in the complaint filed by the petitioner, the deceased came to be convicted and his appeal stood dismissed. Therefore, availing of ones legal remedy cannot amount to abetment in the absence of any specific allegation of harassment or instigation."
Title: The Mahabir Education Welfare Society v. The State of Haryana and others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (PH) 213
Observing that Haryana government has "not bothered to notify any such procedure till today", the Punjab & Haryana High Court has directed the State to lay down specific guidelines on filing up of seats that remain vacant after prescribed rounds of counselling in Private aided and unaided Nursing Institutions.
A Division bench of Justice Ritu Bahri and Justice Manisha Batra said, "the State of Haryana has not bothered to notify any such procedure till today and this has resulted in failure on its part to evolve a transparent method of admission in the private nursing institutions. The State of Haryana, is therefore, directed to lay down specific guidelines qua filling up such seats in private aided/unaided nursing institutions that are remaining vacant/left over after the prescribed rounds of counselling."
Title: Mohit Bedi v. State of Punjab
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (PH) 214
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has rejected the anticipatory bail plea of a constable who was accused of demanding Rs. 10 lacs to fizzle down the investigation in a case involving 280 grams of heroin i.e. commercial quantity recovered from an accused in NDPS Act.
Justice Anoop Chitkara said,"it is apparent that the petitioner was aware that Gopal Singh (accused in NDPS) had made illegal money by dealing with the drugs and wanted to have a piece of such a big cake. Being the member of the police party, it can be disastrous if such a mole betrays their own team due to which some would be working to carb this menace of drugs."
Title: X v. State of Punjab & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (PH) 215
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has made it clear that being below marriageable age would not deprive the live-in couple from fundamental right to protection, guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Justice Arun Monga said, "It is the bounden duty of the State, as per the Constitutional obligations casted upon it, to protect the life and liberty of every citizen. Right to human life is to be treated on much higher pedestal, regardless of a citizen being minor or a major. Mere fact that petitioners are not of marriageable age in the present case would not deprive them of their fundamental right, as envisaged in Constitution of India, being citizens of India."
Punjab & Haryana High Court Directs CBI Probe In Land Grabbing Case Involving Civil Judge
Title: Guru Nanak Vidya Bhandar Trust, Daryaganj, New Delhi v. State of Punjab and others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (PH) 216
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has directed CBI investigation in a Rs. 100 crore land grabbing case involving a Civil Judge Navreet Kaur, who is accused of colluding with the accused persons.
The plea was filed by a trust seeking CBI probe in the matter in which the judge was stated to have given favourable orders to the accused. It was alleged that in an unrelated case, the judge had summoned the senior bank official to produce the bank details of the trust even though it was not at all connected with the case.
Justice Pankaj Jain observed, "the seriousness of the allegations levelled in the present case, the manner in which legal process has been employed to serve the illegal designs of the troublemakers and the conduct of the investigating agency in shifting its stand every now and then, this is one of those cases which calls for a thorough and detailed investigation from an independent agency."