The Supreme Court of India has dismissed appeals in the 23-year-old death case of Telugu/Tamil actress Prathyusha, ruling out allegations of murder and rape.

A Bench of Justices Rajesh Bindal and Manmohan held that consistent eyewitness accounts and medical evidence established death by poisoning. The Court noted that Prathyusha and her boyfriend, Gudipalli Siddhartha Reddy, had consumed poison amid opposition to their relationship, though Reddy survived.

Rejecting the defence of accidental intake, the Court found Reddy guilty of abetment to suicide for procuring the poison and directed him to surrender within four weeks.

It also termed the postmortem conducted by Dr. Muni Swamy unprofessional.

[Gudipalli Siddharta Reddy v. State (C.B.I.)]

The Punjab and Haryana High Court criticised a growing practice where accused persons secure anticipatory bail by promising an amicable settlement, only to renege once liberty is granted.

Justice Sumeet Goel termed this a misuse of judicial leniency and a manipulation of the Court’s equitable jurisdiction.

The Court cancelled the anticipatory bail granted to a company director in a housing project cheating case after he failed to honour a mediated settlement.

Emphasising that such conduct undermines the sanctity of the justice system, the Court imposed ₹25,000 costs and directed the accused to surrender, warning against “shopping for liberty” through hollow undertakings.

[Surinder Pal Singh v. State of Punjab & Anr.]

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has resumed hearing in the 2002 murder case of journalist Ram Chander Chhatrapati, four months after reserving its verdict on the appeal filed by Dera Sacha Sauda chief Gurmeet Ram Rahim.

Citing the “emergence of new facts” during the process of dictating judgment, the Court said further clarification was necessary for proper adjudication.

Ram Rahim was sentenced to life imprisonment by a CBI court in 2019 for the murder and has challenged his conviction, alleging false implication by the investigating agency.

The Punjab & Haryana High Court has cautioned judicial officers against yielding to pressure created by litigants through unfounded allegations of bias.

The Court observed that adverse or unfavourable orders are often misconstrued as prejudice, leading to misuse of transfer petitions and undermining judicial independence. The Court noted that judges work under tremendous strain from multiple stakeholders, and occasional errors cannot be equated with partiality.

It held that vague allegations do not justify transfer of cases and warned against scurrilous attacks on judges and opposing counsel. 

Dismissing the plea, the Court imposed ₹50,000 costs, reaffirming that judicial error is not synonymous with bias.

[Dinesh Chand Bansal v. State of Haryana & Anr.]

The Punjab and Haryana High Court flagged large-scale illegal mining in Haryana’s Charkhi Dadri district, calling it a case of rampant plunder of natural resources.

The Court directed the State to immediately seal the mining site within 48 hours and ordered the Deputy Commissioner to videograph the entire process. It observed that regulatory oversight had prima facie failed and that official connivance could not be ruled out.

The Court also questioned a mining closure order produced by the State, terming it a possible cover-up. The Chief Secretary has been directed to file a personal affidavit detailing steps to address the environmental damage.

The next hearing is scheduled for February 25.

[Residents of Pichopa Kalan Village v. State of Haryana]

The Punjab & Haryana High Court appreciated a Sessions Judge for printing multiple judicial orders on the same sheet to avoid unnecessary paper wastage, calling it a commendable and eco-conscious practice.

Justice Neerja K. Kalson observed that optimum utilisation of paper is a responsibility every court should follow.

While deciding a plea challenging the declaration of the petitioner as a proclaimed offender, the Court also found serious procedural lapses, noting that mandatory requirements under Section 82 CrPC were not followed.

Holding that the proclamation was issued in undue haste without recording satisfaction of abscondence, the Court set aside the impugned order and allowed the petition.

The Punjab and Haryana High Court set aside two lower court rulings that had denied a widow her right to deal with property inherited from her husband based on Meo community custom.

The dispute concerned 42 kanals and 19 marlas of land in Gurgaon district, which Rehmani sold through a registered deed in 1982. A relative challenged the sale, claiming a Meo widow had only a life interest in such property.

The Court held that any restriction based on gender or marital status violates Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution.

It ruled that the land was non-ancestral and that the sale was valid, and dismissed the suit against Rehmani.

[Mohd. Ashraf & Anr. v. Sadiq (Since Deceased) through his LRs & Ors.]

The Punjab and Haryana High Court allowed M3M Group Director Roop Bansal to withdraw his plea seeking quashing of an FIR in a trial judge bribery case, subject to payment of ₹1 lakh as costs.

The Court recorded that the petitioner voluntarily undertook not to challenge the FIR further and that the respondents did not strongly oppose the withdrawal.

The case relates to allegations that a trial court judge received illegal gratification to extend undue favours to M3M and IREO Group promoters, with parallel proceedings under the PMLA.

[Roop Bansal v. State of Haryana & Ors.]

The Punjab and Haryana High Court initiated a suo motu case following representations by the High Court Bar Association over rising incidents of theft targeting advocates.

The action came after a lawyer’s wife was killed by burglars during a robbery. 

A Division Bench directed police authorities to file status reports on investigations. The Bar Association highlighted multiple incidents involving senior lawyers, alleged investigative lapses, and incomplete recovery of stolen property.

It stressed that the issue affects the safety and confidence of the legal fraternity and the public, warranting judicial intervention.

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has refused bail to an accused in a Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) case, emphasising that the law must act as an “unwavering shield” for vulnerable children.

The Court noted the gravity of the allegations involving a 13-year-old girl who was allegedly abducted and repeatedly assaulted, and said the consistent testimony of the victim and supporting witnesses outweighed the accused’s plea for liberty.

The defence’s claims, including absence of physical injuries, were held to be immaterial, as a minor cannot consent legally.

The Court directed that the trial be concluded within six months.

The Punjab and Haryana High Court stayed further investigation against RTI activist Manik Goyal and three journalists booked over social media posts questioning the use of Punjab Chief Minister Bhagwant Mann’s helicopter.

The Court observed that the State cannot initiate criminal action merely because questions are raised against a public office holder.

It held that criticism, satire, and reporting are protected under freedom of speech and expression, and criminal liability cannot be imposed simply because a public authority feels offended.

The Court stayed proceedings till January 23, noting that continuation would prejudice the petitioners’ rights.

[Manik Goyal & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr.]

The Punjab and Haryana High Court set aside the conviction and death penalty awarded in a rape and murder case, holding that the trial was vitiated due to serious procedural lapses.

The Court held that crucial incriminating evidence, including DNA, forensic, and toxicology reports, was not properly presented to the accused during examination under Section 313 of the CrPC.

It observed that such omission caused prejudice and violated the accused’s right to a fair trial.

The Court further observed that mechanically placing evidence without seeking a clear explanation undermines justice, and accordingly ordered a fresh trial from the Section 313 stage.

[State of Haryana v. Vinod]

The Punjab and Haryana High Court refused to grant successive bail to an accused, holding that long incarceration alone cannot be considered a change in circumstances when an earlier bail plea has already been rejected through a detailed order.

The court stated that a second bail application must demonstrate fresh grounds or a material change in the facts.

It observed that allowing repeated bail pleas on the same grounds would undermine judicial discipline and finality of orders.

Finding no new circumstances since the earlier rejection, the Court dismissed the bail application.

[Rajeev Kumar Rana v. Serious Fraud Investigation Office]

The Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed an appeal filed by an insurance company challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

The Court held that the driving licence of the deceased, which authorised him to drive heavy and medium goods vehicles, was sufficient to treat him as a skilled heavy vehicle driver.

It found no error in the Tribunal’s reliance on district-level wage notifications to assess the deceased’s income and reiterated that appellate interference is justified only in cases of perversity or illegality.

Relying on Supreme Court precedent, the Court upheld the MACT award of ₹19.60 lakh with interest, observing that no material irregularity was shown by the insurer.

[National Insurance Co. Ltd v. Vimal Kaur & Ors.]