This court granted temporary protection for one week to petitioners Priyanka and another, who alleged a threat to their lives, restricting their movement to their residence except for medical or essential needs.
Granted protection for one week subject to movement restrictions.
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.
CRWP-1124 of 2022 1
109 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRWP-1124 of 2022 Date of Decision: 08.02.2022
Priyanka and another …Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and others
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA
Present: Ms. Kusum Raj, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. Manish Bansal, DAG, Haryana.
(Through Video Conferencing)
ANOOP CHITKARA, J.(ORAL)
���������������������������������������������������������������������� ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ ����������������������������������������������������������������������������������� ������������������������������� ������������������������!����"
Notices served upon the official respondents through the State's counsel. Given, the nature of the order this Court proposes to pass, there is no requirement to issue notices to the private respondents.
If the allegations of apprehension of threat to their lives are found to be true, it might lead to an irreversible loss. Thus, in the facts and circumstances peculiar to this case, it shall be appropriate that the concerned Superintendent of Police/SHO or any officer to whom such powers have been delegated or has been authorized in this regard, grants protection to the petitioners for one week from today. However, if the petitioners no longer requires the protection, it may be discontinued even prior to the expiry of one week. After that, the concerned officers shall extend the protection on day-to-day analysis of the ground realities
MANPREET SINGH 2022.02.08 13:02 I attest to the accuracy of this order.
CRWP-1124 of 2022
upon the oral or written request of the petitioners.
This protection is subject to the stringent condition that from the time such protection is given, the petitioners shall not go outside the boundaries of the place of residence, except for medical necessities, to buy household necessities, and bereavements in the families of the close relatives or close friends. This restriction saves the petitioners from apprehended risk and ensures that the protection is not flaunted.
It is clarified that there is no adjudication on merits. It shall also be open for the petitioners to approach this Court again in case of any fresh threat perception. It is also clarified that this order is not a blanket bail in any FIR. It is further clarified that this order shall not come in the way if the petitioner’s interrogation is required in any cognizable case.
The petition is disposed of in terms mentioned above.
�������������������������������������������������������������� ������������������������������������������������������������������������� ��������������������������������������������������������������������������������� �������������������������������������������������������������������������������� ������������������������������������������������������������������������� �����
| (ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE |
|
|---|---|
| February 08, 2022 | |
| Manpreet | |
| Whether speaking/reasoned | : Yes |
| Whether reportable | : No |
MANPREET SINGH 2022.02.08 13:02 I attest to the accuracy of this order.
1 issue framed by the court
Whether to grant temporary protection to petitioners apprehending threat to their lives.
Priyanka and another
State of Haryana and others
Anoop Chitkara
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
