- Home
- /
- High Courts
- /
- Punjab and Haryana High Court
- /
- 50 Important Judgments Of Punjab &...
50 Important Judgments Of Punjab & Haryana High Court: 2023
Aiman J. Chishti
12 Feb 2024 4:40 PM IST
50 Important Judgements Of Punjab & Haryana High Court- 20231.Give Two Separate Dates For Publication Of Proclamation U/S 82 CrPC & For Appearance Of Accused 30 Days Thereafter: P&H High Court To MagistratesCase Title: Jagjit Singh @ Jaggi v. State of PunjabCitation: 2023 LiveLaw (PH) 2In an attempt to prevent violation of Section 82 of the CrPC dealing with issuance...
50 Important Judgements Of Punjab & Haryana High Court- 2023
Case Title: Jagjit Singh @ Jaggi v. State of Punjab
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (PH) 2
In an attempt to prevent violation of Section 82 of the CrPC dealing with issuance of 'proclamations,' the Punjab and Haryana High Court has advised the Courts of Judicial Magistrates to give two separate dates in the proclamation; the first within 15-20 days to ensure publication of proclamation and the second after 30 days to ensure appearance of the accused.
Case Title: Hari Ram Hans Vs Smt Deepali & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (PH) 6
Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that the word "Widow" under the Section 19 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 includes minor grand children staying with her, for the purpose of maintenance from father-in-law. It thus refused interference in a revision petition against a Family Court order which granted maintenance pendente lite of Rs 2000/- to the each of the three grandchildren of the Petitioner (father-in-law). The challenge was premised on the ground that Section 19 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 entitles the widow daughter-in-law to file an application for maintenance, however, no provision exists to pay the maintenance to the grand children.
3.Plea Of Juvenility Can Be Raised Even After Conviction, Sentence: Punjab & Haryana High Court
Case Title: ABC v. State of Haryana
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (PH) 13
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has observed that the plea of juvenility can be raised by a person even after the disposal of the case in terms of conviction and sentence, as per which plea, the authorities shall be bound to conduct an age determination inquiry.
The Court was dealing with a petition filed by a person who had committed an offence at the age of a little over 16 years in the year 1995. As per the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986, a male was considered to be a juvenile till the age of 16 years and female till the age of 18 years, which was raised to 18 ears for males through the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000.
Case Title: Subhash @ Makkar and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Related Matter
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (PH) 16
The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently held that the credible eye witness account "is to be assigned preponderance and precedence" over the medical account in case of contradiction between the two.
The court also said that the effect of minimal digressions or contradictions between the previously made statements in writing by the eyewitness and "his echoings in his testification recorded before the Court, are insignificant, especially when the echoing made by the ocular witness about the presence of all the accused, at the crime site, remains unrebutted and uncontroverted through adduction of cogent evidence."
Case Title: Dr XXX v. State Information Commissioner, Haryana and Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw(PH) 19
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that the information with regard to the employee's place of posting, period of deputation, working hours, place of headquarter during deputation, any type of leaves availed along with the permission to leave the headquarter, copy of attendance register and movement register is personal in nature and cannot be disclosed under the RTI Act.
The court passed the ruling in a case where the the State Information Commission, Haryana, in 2015 directed disclosure of such information, pertaining to a dental surgeon, to an applicant under the RTI Act.
Case Title: State of Punjab and Another v. Amariit Kaur
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (PH) 20
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that the policy excluding married daughters from the benefit of compassionate appointment upon the death of their fathers is unconstitutional on account of being violative of Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution of India.
The division bench of Justice G.S. Sandhawalia and Justice Harpreet Kaur Jeewan said: "We are of the considered opinion that the exclusion at the outset in the case of a married daughter is apparently arbitrary. The rejection at the threshold only on the ground of gender would be violative of Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution of India since in contrast similarly situated sibling like the son who may be married and living separately would come within the zone of consideration since in his case, under Clause (b) of Note-I, it is not that his consideration is excluded being the married son."
Case title - Ajit Singh vs. State of Punjab [CRM-M-21645-2022]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (PH) 21
While denying Anticipatory Bail to a man accused of conning another person with a promise of a job in the Indian Army, the Punjab and Haryana High Court recently observed that getting Government Job is not just a dream but also a sign of being a winner and this weakness of people is being exploited by the Thugs.
Title: Daulat Ram Khan Versus State of Haryana
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (PH) 34
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that if Dharamshala is provided at a nominal rent for conducting marriages, it will not amount to a commercial purpose.The division bench of Justice Ritu Bahri and Justice Manisha Batra has observed that Dharamshalas are not liable to pay the property tax.
The petitioner's tax on lands and buildings was assessed, and the assessee was served with a notice of demand, including arrears, in the prescribed forms. De Hors Statutory Rules: High Court Directs Punjab Education Dept To Prepare Fresh Seniority List Of 50,000 Masters.
Case title - Sandeep Malik vs. Renu and others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (PH) 40
The Punab and Haryana High Court has observed that a person who is able to pay a hefty loan amount can not deflect from his responsibility towards his legally wedded wife as well children.
The observation was made by the bench of Justice Jagmohan Bansal while upholding a family court order directing one Sandeep Malik, a Lieutenant Colonel, working with the Indian Army to pay a total of Rs. 55,000/- to his wife and minor daughters as maintenance.
Case title - XXXX vs. YYYY
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (PH) 50
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has observed that a husband has got a moral and legal liability to maintain his wife unable to maintain herself, even if he is a professional beggar.
The bench of Justice HS Madaan asserted thus while dismissing a plea filed by the husband challenging an order passed by the subordinate court awarding Rs 5K as monthly maintenance to the wife during the pendency of the divorce matter.
Title: Bennett Coleman and Company Limited versus State of Haryana and others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (PH) 51
While allowing Times Group's petition challenging the dismissal of its application under Section 311 of CrPC by trial court in a case of alleged forced religious conversion, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has said the provisions of Section 311 CrPC can be invoked by anyone who is able to show that the evidence of witness sought to be examined will be necessary for just decision of the case.
Justice Jasgurpreet Singh Puri said a perusal of Section 311 CrPC would show that it is the duty of the court to apply its mind to ascertain as to whether testimony of person sought to be summoned is required for just decision of the case.
Case Title: Kamal Singh vs. State of Haryana
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (PH) 53
The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently granted bail to a retired army personnel, who had been imprisoned for nearly a year, holding that mere registration of other cases against the petitioner could not be taken as the sole material consideration for denying him bail.
The court passed the above order in a petition filed under Section 439 of the CrPC, seeking grant of regular bail in an FIR registered under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 506 of IPC.
Case Title: Chandan Paswan v. State of Punjab and Another
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (PH) 68
Quashing a rape case on the basis of compromise between the accused and complainant, the Punjab and Haryana High Court said their married life cannot be disturbed for the sake of trial in the FIR.
Justice Amarjot Bhatti said the offence under Section 376(2)(n), 506 of IPC is a serious offence and is non-compoundable under Section 320 of CrC but to do a complete justice and to protect the future of the couple, the compromise arrived at between them cannot be ignored.
Case Title: Suresh Kumar Satija v.Balwinder Singh Touri
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (PH) 70
The Punjab & Haryana High Court imposed a cost of Rs 1 lakh on a police officer who had handcuffed
Suresh Kumar Satija, an Akali Dal member, while taking him to market in connection with investigation in a 2018 forgery case.
"Considering the fact that the petitioner was handcuffed by the respondent, the respondent is directed to pay a cost of Rs. 1,00,000/-, which will be deposited in the Punjab and Haryana High Court Employee's Welfare Association. However, it will have no bearing on service carrier of respondent, said Justice Arvind Singh Sangwan in the order.
Case Title: Modern Insecticides Ltd. Versus Commissioner, Central Goods and Service Tax and another
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (PH) 77
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that deposits of tax during searches cannot be retained by the department until the adjudication of the notice.
The bench of Justice Ritu Bahri and Justice Kuldeep Tiwari has directed the department to return the amount of Rs. 2.54 crores to the petitioner along with simple interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of deposit until the payment is made.
Case Title: Manjeet Singh v. State of Punjab
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (PH) 95
In a significant ruling, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that on conclusion of investigation and filing of challan, if no decision on prosecution sanction is taken and communicated within the period as specified in the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) (Recommendation and Sanction of Prosecution) Rules, 2008, the accused ought to be released on interim bail.
Case Title: Rajwinder Singh v. State of Punjab and others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (PH) 149
In a significant ruling, the Punjab & Haryana High Court recently held that authorities including the Appellate Authorities under the Right to Information Act (TI) have been passing "cryptic and non-speaking orders" in violation of the judgements of the Supreme Court, High Courts and mandate of the RTI Act.
Justice Vikas Bahl thus directed authorities handling appeals under the Right to Information (RTI) Act to provide clear and reasoned orders while adjudicating cases.
Case title: X v. State of Punjab & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (PH) 150
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has directed the State governments to ensure that offices, especially all educational institutions, do not insist on disclosure of fathers' name of the child of a rape victim. The direction was made on a suggestion put forth by Amicus Curiae Tanu Bedi in a matter regarding welfare and rehabilitation of rape victims and children born from such offence.
Case Title: Mohan Lal @ Mohan v. UOI and all connected matters
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (PH) 133
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has held that the bar for not issuing a passport will not apply to the person convicted of an offence for not less than 2 years, after the passing of 5 years of conviction, even if the appeal is pending.
"It is well known fact that conclusion of trial in India takes quite long time. Passing of 5 years period post-conviction, primarily though not absolutely, makes possibility of the applicant to flee from justice abysmally low," said Justice Jagmohan Bansal.
Case Title: Pushpinder Kumar alias Pushpinder Singh alias Tinku v. State of Punjab
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (PH) 135
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has directed a Punjab Police official, who got an FIR registered under under Narcotic Druas and Psvchotropic Substances Act "without an basis" to pav compensation of Rs. 10,000 to the accused.
"Since the FIR has been got registered even before creating a basis for that, and due to the FIR, the petitioner has been put to the harassment and expenses, therefore, the person, who got the said FIR registered against the petitioner without any basis is directed to pay a compensation of Rs. 10,000/-to the petitioner within a period of four weeks from today" said the bench of Justice Raibir Sehrawat.
Case Title: X v. State of Haryana
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (PH) 137
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has held that even when a juvenile is tried as an adult in case of allegation of heinous crime, the benefit of bail under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act cannot be denied to him.
"No doubt, the appellant/CCL was directed to be tried like an adult, but still he remains a juvenile in conflict with law and can never be denied the benefit of Section 12 of the Act," said Justice N.S. Shekhawat, while dealing with the bail plea of a juvenile.
Case title - Pooja and another vs. State of Punjab and others [CRWP No.8041 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (PH) 144
Observing that Article 21 of the Constitution of India does not cease to apply when people of the same gender decide to live together, the Punjab and Haryana High Court today granted police protection to a same-sex live-in couple.
The bench of Justice Anoop Chitkara passed this order while dealing with a protection plea filed by a major lesbian couple who have been staying together in a live-in relationship for the last four years.
Case Title: Sheela Vs. Brahamjit and others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (PH) 145
The Punjab & Haryana High Court recently held that a fresh hearing is not required when the composition of the bench changes after conviction order, especially when no prejudice is caused to the parties.
The bench of Justice Lisa Gill and Justice Archana Puri clarified that the retirement of one judge from the bench does not invalidate the prior decision.
"It would indeed be a travesty of justice to hold that appeals should be heard afresh while ignoring decision dated 29.01.2020 even while we feel no necessity thereof, before sentencing the respondents or that decision dated 29.01.2020 whereby the respondents have been convicted should be set to naught merely because one of the Members of the Bench delivering the decision, has demitted office on superannuation."
Case Title: Gurdarshan Singh Gill v. UOI
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (PH) 151
The Punjab & Haryana High Court recently dismissed a plea challenging the land acquisition by NHAI for the Ambala-Chandigarh Highway and imposed a cost of Rs.1 lakh on the petitioner for lack of empathy for the larger public interest.
The division bench of Justice Sureshwar Thakur and Justice Kuldeep Tiwari criticised the petitioner for obstruction in giving possession of the land and said,
"..apathy of the petitioner to the larger public interest, rather his focusing on his individualistic interest, is required to be deprecated. Therefore, the petition is dismissed with costs of Rs. 1,00,000/-to be forthwith deposited in the Poor Patient Fund of the P.G.I.M.E.R., Chandigarh."
Case Title: Sukhwinder Singh v. State of Punjab and others
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (PH) 153
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has observed that recording adverse remarks in transfer orders such as “having links with accused indulging in intoxicant material and illegal mining” is not called for and should not be used against him. While acknowledging that the While acknowledging that the respondents are well within their competence to transfer an employee for administrative reasons or for any reason as found justifiable, Justice Gurvinder Singh Gill said.
Case Title: Nasri v. State of Haryana and others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (PH) 155
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has laid down sixteen guiding principles to be followed by sentencing Courts while exercising discretion for grant of probation to a convict.
A bench of Justice Arun Monga observed that Probation of Offenders Act was enacted to providing the offenders with a chance to reform rather than dumpling into jails.
"Probation can thus also be termed as an alternative form of punishment envisaged within the criminal justice system. In my opinion, following principles or what can be termed as potential benefits of release on probation ought to be kept in mind by the learned sentencing Courts below for exercise of judicial discretion to grant probation, provided a deserving case is made out, it said.
Case Title: Rajinder Singh @ Baz v. State of Punjab
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (PH) 156
The Punjab & Haryana High Court recently directed to attach the salary of police officials who failed depose before the Court despite issuance of several summons in a 2021 case under NDPS (Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 Act).
Justice Pankaj Jain observed, "Inertness of the prosecution and helplessness of the Court remain unexplained. Trial Court is directed to attach salary of the official witnesses who failed to depose despite service after taking their details from the record."
Case Title: Goldy v. State of Haryana
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (PH) 157
The Punjab & Haryana High Court recently acquitted a man sentenced to 20 years imprisonment for allegedly committing sodomy on a 14 years old boy.
"the effects) of the victim completely resiling from his statements Ex. P-5, and, Ex. P-6, besides the effects of the MLR of the victim, as enclosed in Ex. P-1 also blunting the genesis of the prosecution version, that the victim was not subjected to any penetrative sexual assault by the accused, thus thereby the charges become completely staggered," said the bench of Justice Sureshwar Thakur and Justice Kuldeep Tiwari.
Case Title: Gurleen Kaur v. State of Punjab
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (PH) 160
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has granted anticipatory bail to a woman accused of abetting the suicide of a man with whom she used to have an intimate relationship, by refusing to marry him after.
"A lady cannot be forced to marry a person it she has earlier developed intimacy with him," said the bench of Justice Gurbir Singh.
The bench was hearing the plea of accused who was named in the deceased's suicide note. The alleged note said since the petitioner refused to marry him, so he ended his life.
Case Title: Sunna & Ors. v. Union of India
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (PH) 163
Rejecting the contention that the family failed to prove that deceased was "bona fide passenger", the bench of Justice Karamit Singh said, "it is evident that deceased sustained ante-mortem injuries in a railway accident, as a result of which he died. Thus making it ample clear that untoward incident took place while the deceased was traveling in a train on 13.11.2012, as a result of which the deceased fell from running train in the area between Ambala Cantt. and Dukheri and died at the spot after being crushed under the train."
Case Title: Chandeep Singh @ Gabbar Singh v. National Investigation Agency
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (PH) 165
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that it is the "bounded duty" of Trial Court to examine the role of an accused under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act [UAPA] while deciding his bail plea under stringent Section 43-D.
A bench of Justice G.S Sandhawalia and Justice Rajesh Bhardwai observed that merely because a charge has been framed under UAPA would not be a ground to deny the benefit of bail to an accused if prima facie charge is not made out.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (PH) 169
Case Title: Bharat Kumar v. State of Kumar
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has made it clear that the mere filing of an FL report with the chargesheet in a NDPS case will not be a ground to cancel default bail granted to an accused.
Justice Deepak Gupta observed, "...it is made clear that merely filing the FL report along with the challan in itself will not be considered a reason for cancelling the default bail."
However, the bench added that since default bail is not granted on merits, it may be canceled after the filing of a chargesheet if a strong case is made against the accused for a non-bailable offence.
Case Title: Rampal v. State of Haryana
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (PH) 170
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has dismissed the bail plea of self-styled Godman Rampal, who was booked for an attempt to wage war against the government in 2014. Rampal had allegedly garnered a huge crowd of devotees in front of his ashram to resist his arrest in connection with a murder case and perpetrated large-scale violence with the police forces.
A bench of Justice G.S. Sandhawalia and Justice Alok Jain observed that the petitioner was arrested with great difficulty and that his long detention alone did not entitle him to bail.
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (PH) 171
Case Title: Court on Its own Motion v. State of Punjab
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has awarded a compensation of Rs. 5 lakh to the family of a youth who committed suicide in the De-addiction Centre of a Civil Hospital.
While doing so, a division bench of Justice G.S Sandhawalia and Justice Harpreet Kaur Jeewan observed, "It was the duty of the State as he was in their custody to ensure that even if he had suicidal tendencies, sufficient care should have been extended towards him and an extra watch should have been kept so that he would not have been successful in his attempts."
Case Title: Ravinder Singh Thakur v. State of Punjab and others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (PH) 174
The Punjab & Haryana High Court recently awarded Rs. 5 lakh in damages to a man who could not qualify for the Nab Tehsildar exam conducted in 1996 due to a miscalculation of 2 marks.
Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma held that it was appropriate to grant damages to the petitioner for being deprived of appointment due to wrongful calculation of his merit instead of considering him for appointment after more than 24 years.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (PH) 176
Case Title: Balwinder Singh v. Union of India and others
Observing that police authorities are sending incomplete reports which is the "root cause of denial of passport", the Punjab & Haryana High Court has said that police authorities must disclose the complete status of FIR in verification done for issuing of the passport.
Justice Jagmohan Bansal said that the proforma prepared for the information to be furnished by the Police Official in the meeting called by the Additional Solicitor General of India, pursuant to Mohan Lal @ Mohna vs. Union of India and others, should be followed.
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (PH) 177
Title: Gurnam Singh v. State of Punjab. & anr.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has made it clear that insults to religion "made unwittingly or carelessly without any malicious or deliberate intent" would not be an offence under Section 295A of the Indian Penal Code.
The Court said, "It needs to be reiterated that Section 295A of the IPC does not penalize any and every act of insult or an attempt to insult the religion or the religious beliefs of a person or a community but it penalizes only those acts of insults or attempts which have been perpetrated with a deliberate and malicious intent so as to outrage the religious feelings of a particular class/community."
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (PH) 180
Case Title: Vikram Kumar & Ors. v. State of U.T. Chandigarh and others
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has granted relief to a live-in couple, the girl being a minor, seeking protection from alleged threats of the girl's family. Court said it wouldn't comment upon the legality of the relationship but,
"Mere fact that the petitioners are not of marriageable age or that petitioner No.2 is still a minor, would not deprive the petitioners of their fundamental rights as envisaged in the Constitution, being citizens of India.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (PH) 184
Title: Satbir v. State of Haryana
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has reiterated that the sale of the Medical Termination of
Pregnancy (MTP) kit alone does not constitute an offence punishable under the MTP Act.
Justice Pankai Jain relied on the precedent in Dr. Vandana Malik v. State of Haryana and quashed the FIR and subsequent proceedings against the petitioner as the allegations did not establish a case against the accused.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (PH) 185
Case Title: Ravdeep Kaur v. State of Punjab & Ors.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has made it clear that trial courts cannot impose life sentence on a convict with a rider that the sentence will extend to 'full life' or 'till the natural death' of the convict.
Justice Deepak Gupta clarified that such a rider can only be imposed by the High Court or then Supreme Court.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (PH) 187
Case Title: Rajak v. State of Haryana and others
Justice Arun Monga said, "These guidelines are aimed to ensure transparency, fairness and adherence to legal procedures in mining-related penalty imposition and vehicle seizures, while also taking into consideration the humanitarian aspects and the livelihood of the affected individuals and families."
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (PH) 189
Case Title: Saniay Rai v. State of Puniab and another
Observing an act of sacrilege is a heinous offence "irrespective of any religion", the Punjab & Haryana High Court has refused to quash FIR lodged under Section 295-A IPC against a man, claiming himself as incarnation of Guru Nanak Dev. Sanjay Rai claimed that he is the incarnation of Guru Nanak Dev and he can prove it by his spiritual knowledge.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (PH) 208
Title: Sukhwinder Singh through his SPA & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr.
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has made it clear that a proclaimed offender cannot seek quashing of the FIR on the basis of a compromise by filing petition through Power of Attorney.
Justice Jasjit Singh Bedi said, "A proclaimed offender cannot seek quashing of the FIR on the basis of a compromise, more so, when he is absconding in multiple cases pending against him."
The Court further added that (Proclaimed Offender) cannot short circuit the system by filing petitions through Powers of Attorney unless he was a minor, insane, suffering from disability or for certain compelling circumstances is unable to appear in person."
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (PH) 210
Title: Gulab Singh v. State of Haryana & Ors.
Observing that, "exemplary costs needs to be imposed so that no one could dare to take the Courts for a ride", the Punjab & Haryana High Court has imposed a cost of Rs. 1 lakh on a lawyer for suppressing facts in an anticipatory bail application in a murder case.
Second anticipatory bail application was filed stating that the first was withdrawn in 2022 without mentioning that an "undertaking to surrender within a period of one week" was given and on that undertaking, a direction was issued that no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioner and in case the petitioner surrenders and files an application for bail, same shall be considered by the trial Court expeditiously.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (PH) 255
Title: Pramodh v. State of Punjab
Taking note of the stringent bail provisions under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), the Punjab & Haryana High Court has issued directions to the Punjab Police to check misuse of the application of the Act. While deciding a bail application in an attempt to murder case, wherein the Investigating Officer (IO) added UAPA to the FIR, a division bench of Justice Sureshwar Thakur and Justice Sudeepti Sharma said that the "non-application" of mind by the police before adding the offence under the Act needs to be curbed.
44.POCSO Act| Ejaculation Of Semen Not A Necessary Pre-Requisite To Prove Penetrative
Sexual Assault: Punjab & Haryana HC
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (PH) 269
Case Title: X v. State of Haryana
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has recently upheld the conviction under Section 6 (punishment for aggravated penetrative sexual assault) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act) for committing rape of an 8 years old girl, observing that ejaculation of semen is not necessary pre-requisite for the purpose of proving penetrative sexual assault.
A division bench of Justice Sureshwar Thakur and Justice Sudeepti Sharma observed, "Simply because semen was not detected, it cannot be said with all certainty that there was no penetration.
All that is required to prove the offence of penetrative sexual assault defined under Section 3 of the
POCSO Act is, mere penetration of penis or any object or part of the body into the vagina, mouth, urethra or anus of a child or mere insertion to any extent, any object or a part of the body, not being the penis, into the vagina, the urethra or anus of the child and even if the accused manipulates any part of the body of the child so as to cause penetration into the vagina, urethra, anus or any part of the body of the child then also it constitutes an offence of penetrative sexual assault."
45.Mere Violation Of Bail Condition Not Enough To Cancel Bail: Punjab & Haryana High Court
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (PH) 273
Title: Rajiya v. State of Haryana
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has made it clear that a mere violation of a bail condition would not be enough to cancel bail and there must be cogent and overwhelming circumstances necessary to cancel the bail once granted.
While quashing the bail condition and order cancelling bail in an NDPS case, Justice Jasjit Singh Bedi said, "The only condition that can be imposed is that the Investigating Agency/complainant would be at liberty to move an application for cancellation of bail which would be adiudicated upon in accordance with law. In fact, bail once granted cannot be cancelled automatically and in a mechanical manner. There must be cogent and overwhelming circumstances necessary to cancel the bail once granted."
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (PH) 272
Title: Dr. Rachna Raina v. State of Haryana
Observing that "forced, illicit abortions in unhygienic clinics directly attacks their right to bodily autonomy inter alia violating right enshrined under Article 21, the Punjab & Haryana High Court refused to quash an FIR lodged against a female doctor, alleged involved in illegal sex determination, on the ground that under the Preconception and Pre- Natal Diagnostic Techniques Act, 1994 (PNDT Act) the cognizance can be taken by the Court only on filing of complaint by appropriate authority.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (PH) 264
Title: Harmeet Lal v. State of Punjab & Ors.
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has directed the Punjab government to reconsider the case of policemen (following their acquittal in a criminal case) who were earlier dismissed from service following a departmental inquiry initiated against them for allegations of supplying arms to Naxalites.
Justice Jagmohan Bansal noted that the SSP concerned had invoked the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 and the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 "without ascertaining even the complete title of these Acts as well as the scope of invoking these Acts."
Case Title: Sakshi Babbar v. RBI & Anr.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (PH) 265
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has pulled up the Reserve Bank of India for its 'pedantic approach in not issuing an appointment letter to a candidate with a disability as she couldn't give her thumb impression on biometrics because of the disability condition.
Though the Candidate had verified her identity physically and qualified for the exam for a post in the Bank, she was denied the issuance of an appointment letter because verification could not be completed on biometrics.
Case Title: Bhupinder Singh @ Sheru v. State of Punjab
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (PH) 275
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has rejected the bail pleas of "Waris Punjab De" chief Amritpal Singh's alleged aides in Ajnala Police Station Attack case.
In February, Amritpal, along with a mob, allegedly attacked a police station in Punjab's Ajnala, in an attempt to forcibly release his alleged aide from judicial custody.
While rejecting the relief of bail, Justice Kuldeep Tiwari said, "On the strength of an unholy mob, no citizen of this country can be allowed to either interfere in the administration of justice, or, to cause injury (ies) to public authority(ies), while them being discharging their public duty(es). At this stage, this Court refrains from evincing any opinion as regards the veracity of the allegations, and/or, evidentiary worth of the evidence collected by the investigating agency, leaving the same to be appreciated by the trial Court, at an appropriate stage."
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (PH) 270
Title: Shikha and others v. State of Haryana and others
The Punjab & Haryana High Court, directed Haryana to accept the recommendations of the High Court made on appointing 13 judicial officers as additional district and session judges and give necessary effect to it "within two weeks."
It also opined that the State government's move to seek a legal opinion from the Union Government in the matter "would amount to a serious assault on the independence of the functioning of the High Court.
