Can Maintenance Ordered Under Section 125 CrPC Be Enhanced Under Section 127 CrPC Based on Increased Pension and Cost of Living?—Delhi High Court Clarifies Scope, Upholds Precedential Principles

The Delhi High Court reaffirms that “change in circumstances” under Section 127 CrPC includes rise in respondent’s pension and increase in cost of living, warranting enhancement of maintenance. Applies binding authority; upholds and clarifies guiding precedents for all subordinate courts within Delhi.   Summary Category Data Case Name CRL.REV.P.(MAT.)/73/2024 of SMT KRISHNA KUMARI Vs SH […]

Can Parole Be Denied Solely on General Apprehensions Without Specific Evidence? — Precedent Upheld by Punjab & Haryana High Court

The Punjab & Haryana High Court reaffirms that refusal of parole cannot rest only on generic fears of crime or public disorder unless supported by concrete, case-specific incidents; established precedent is followed, ensuring that future administrative rejections of parole demand evidentiary basis. This ruling holds binding authority for subordinate courts and parole administrations in the […]

Does Prolonged Illness Justify Grant of Anticipatory Bail in Non-Bailable Offences When the Accused Shows Bona Fide Intention to Appear Before Trial Court? – Precedential Clarification Under Section 482 BNSS, 2023

The Punjab & Haryana High Court affirms that in cases where an accused, previously declared a proclaimed person due to inability to attend court on medical grounds (here, prolonged illness), demonstrates intention to rejoin proceedings, anticipatory bail may be granted under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023. This judgment upholds the court’s inherent powers and […]

When Is a Writ Mandamus Impermissible for Non-Registration of FIR if Alternative Remedies Exist Under CrPC/SARFAESI Act? — Affirmation of Judicial Restraint and Directing Recourse to Statutory Forums

The Punjab & Haryana High Court reaffirms that writ jurisdiction is not to be invoked when alternative efficacious statutory remedies—such as under Section 156(3) CrPC—are available for seeking registration of FIR and redressal of related grievances; upholding established Supreme Court precedents and reinforcing the doctrine of alternate remedy, with dispositive value for financial, banking, and […]

Does Delay in Filing Appeals for Enhanced Land Compensation Bar Claimants from Relief Where Identical Issues Stand Decided, or Can Delay Be Condoned?

The High Court holds that significant delay in filing appeals for enhanced compensation under land acquisition can be condoned if the matter is squarely covered by prior judicial pronouncements, but excludes interest for the delayed period. The decision reaffirms settled precedent, aligning with Supreme Court authority, and remains binding precedent in future land acquisition matters […]

When Is a Person Validly Declared Proclaimed Offender? Punjab & Haryana High Court Reaffirms Mandatory Compliance With Section 82 CrPC — Binding Authority

Reiterating the settled legal position, the Court holds that every mandatory procedural step prescribed under Section 82 CrPC (including public reading, affixation, and written satisfaction about absconding) must be meticulously followed before declaring an accused as a proclaimed offender. Failure of strict compliance vitiates the entire proclamation and subsequent proceedings. The judgment upholds existing precedent […]

Can Interim Anticipatory Bail Be Made Absolute Where the Accused Has Joined Investigation and Custodial Interrogation Is No Longer Required? Clarification under Section 482, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023—High Court decision upholds existing legal practice and serves as binding authority.

The Punjab & Haryana High Court reaffirms that when the accused has fully cooperated and custodial interrogation is not needed, interim pre-arrest bail granted under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023, can be confirmed as absolute; the principle follows settled law and is binding within the State’s jurisdiction.   Summary Category Data Case Name CRM-M/32391/2025 of […]

Does Prolonged Pre-Trial Detention Override the Rigours of Section 37 NDPS Act for Grant of Bail in Commercial Quantity Offences?

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana clarified that even in commercial quantity NDPS cases, extended pre-trial detention and absence of evidence progress may justify grant of bail, especially where conscious possession of the contraband is disputed. This judgment upholds existing legal standards but clarifies the court’s discretion under prolonged incarceration and unresolved trial issues, […]

Can Parole Be Denied Solely on Speculative Grounds Without Evidentiary Support? — Reaffirming the Requirement for Record-Based Justification in Parole Decisions Under the NDPS Act

The High Court clarifies that parole may not be denied merely on the apprehension that a convict may re-offend, unless such apprehension is supported by material on record. This judgment upholds existing precedent and strengthens the evidentiary threshold for denying parole, serving as a binding authority for parole matters involving NDPS Act convicts in Punjab […]

When Should Tribunals Direct Compensation to Be Kept in Fixed Deposits? Clarification of Guidelines for Major Claimants (Binding Precedent)

Punjab and Haryana High Court holds that mandatory fixed deposit of compensation for major claimants, in the absence of specific risks, is unnecessary; upholds and elucidates existing Supreme Court and High Court precedent. This provides binding guidance for future compensation disbursal orders in claims tribunals, especially in transport accident cases.   Summary Category Data Case […]

Can Public Employees Claim Regularization of Service Based on Recent Supreme Court Precedents?

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana directed that if a public employee makes a representation for regularization of service, the competent authority must consider it in light of binding Supreme Court judgments and give reasoned orders. This upholds established precedent and provides binding procedural guidance within the court’s jurisdiction for handling such cases.   […]

Can Execution of Terms of Divorce by Mutual Consent Under Section 13B HMA Be Stayed or Obstructed Due to Alleged Change in Circumstances When Modification Proceedings Are Pending?

The High Court reaffirmed that unless the mutual settlement (MOU) annexed to a consent divorce decree expressly allows modification based on subsequent changes, Family Courts are bound to enforce the decree and its terms. A pending application to modify settlement terms under Section 25 HMA does not stay execution. This judgment clarifies a recurring issue […]