Petition for direction to protect life and liberty dismissed as infructuous after petitioners refused security.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-73 of 2019 Date of Decision: 10.04.2019
Komal and another
...Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and others
....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMENDRA JAIN
Present:None for the petitioners. Mr. Amandeep S. Gill, DAG, Punjab.
RAMENDRA JAIN, J. (ORAL)
Through instant petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. prayer has been made for issuance of direction to respondents No.2 and 3 to protect the life and liberty of the petitioners at the hands of respondents No.4 to 8.
Learned State counsel submits that instant petition has rendered infructuous in view of the fact that petitioners have refused to take security for the protection of their life and liberty.
Dismissed as having been rendered infructuous.
(RAMENDRA JAIN) April 10, 2019 JUDGE R.S.
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No
RAVINDER SINGH 2019.04.12 09:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
Komal
State of Punjab
Ramendra Jain
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
