The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that successive anticipatory bail pleas for the same relief, filed without a material change in circumstances, amount to forum shopping and a misuse of the process of court. Chandigarh: The Punjab and Haryana High Court has dismissed a second anticipatory bail petition filed by a man accused […]
A second plea for successive bail in an NDPS case has failed before the Punjab and Haryana High Court, which held that “mere prolongation of custody”, here a little over seven and a half months with nothing else new, is not a substantial change in circumstances. Chandigarh: Refusing successive bail to an accused in a […]
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that a petition under Section 528 BNSS against a Sessions Court’s revisional order operates within an extraordinarily constricted domain and can amount to a disguised second revision, dismissing a challenge to an order directing delivery of about 514 kanals of land in Kaithal to a samadh.
Punjab: The Punjab and Haryana High Court on Tuesday (18th March) rejected a petition that challenged the requirement of minimum marks for selecting judges for the district judiciary. The petitioner had argued that there should be no mandatory minimum marks for judicial selections. A division bench comprising Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sumeet Goel ruled that setting a minimum marks requirement is necessary to maintain the quality of the judiciary.
Today, On 12th March, The Lok Sabha informed the Punjab & Haryana High Court that MP Amritpal Singh has been granted leave to attend proceedings. The court was hearing Singh’s plea seeking permission to participate in parliamentary sessions while in detention. His request raised legal questions about the rights of detained legislators. A final decision will depend on the court’s assessment of his case.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court emphasized the importance of protecting eloping couples from legal harassment, citing Shakespeare to support the ruling. Justice Sumeet Goel stressed that courts should consider petitions to quash kidnapping cases involving eloping couples with significant latitude. The Court highlighted the need to use its inherent jurisdiction to dismiss such proceedings, considering the complete set of facts and circumstances of each case.
