No. The court disposed of a criminal miscellaneous petition regarding security arrangement after the State assured protection if needed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Crl. Misc. No. M-30293 of 2010 1
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
Crl. Misc. No. M-30293 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision : 1.12.2010
Priti and another
Versus
State of Punjab & others
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA
Present: Mr. Veneet Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Raghbir Chaudhary, Senior DAG, Punjab for respondents No.1 to 3.
Rajan Gupta, J. (oral)
Reply by way of affidavit of Inderbir Singh, Assistant Commissioner of Police (Central), Amritsar City has been filed in court. The same is taken on record. Learned State counsel refers to same and submits that statements of both the petitioners have been recorded according to which they are living peacefully as husband and wife at the given address. They do not face any threat from any corner and thus, no security is required by them. Learned State counsel, however, assures that in case circumstances so warrant, adequate steps shall be taken for protection of the petitioners.
In view of above, no further orders are required to be passed in this case.
Disposed of.
(RAJAN GUPTA) JUDGE
1.12.2010 'rajpal'
Priti and another
State of Punjab
Rajan Gupta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
