Allowed

Ramesh Chander and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC18 Dec 2023CRWP/12196/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted protection to petitioners fearing threats to their life and liberty under Article 21. It ordered the police to provide security for one week based on an assessment, with conditions to avoid risky areas. The Court also directed a reasoned decision on a pending representation within two months.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners granted protection for one week; directions issued to decide a representation within two months.

Ramesh Chander and Ors. Vs Sta… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Punjab & Haryana HC (2023)

¶1

1 2023:PHHC:162008

¶2

CRWP No.12196 of 2023

¶3

117 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CRWP No.12196 of 2023

¶5

Date of Decision: 18.12.2023

¶6

Ramesh Chander and others ...Petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

State of Punjab and others …Respondents

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA

¶10

Present: Mr. G.P.S. Ghuman, Advocate for the petitioners.

¶11

Mr. Shiva Khurmi, AAG, Punjab (Through VC).

¶12

¶13

ANOOP CHITKARA, J.

¶14

Fearing for life and liberty at the hands of the private respondents, the petitioners, invoking the fundamental right of life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, have come up before this Court seeking protection through the State.

¶15

Notices served upon the official respondents through the State's counsel. Given the nature of the order that this Court proposes to pass, neither the response of official respondents nor the issuance of notices to the private respondents is required.

¶16

If the allegations of apprehension of threat to life turn out 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, or any officer to whom such powers have been delegated or have been authorized in this regard, provide appropriate protection to the petitioners for one week from today. However, if the petitioners no longer requires the protection, then at their request, it may be discontinued even before the expiry of one week. After that, the concerned officers shall extend the protection on day-to-day analysis of the ground realities or upon the oral or written request of the petitioners.

¶17

The protection is subject to the stringent condition that from the time such protection is given, the petitioners shall refrain from attending parties, bars, picnics or any area that may pose a risk to their life. The SHO should send police officer(s) to petitioners’ home to assess the required level of security. Once the assessment is done, the officer should provide adequate security without the petitioners having to contact them.

¶18

ANJU RANI 2023.12.19 15:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶19

¶20

2023:PHHC:162008

¶21

CRWP No.12196 of 2023

¶22

It is clarified that if the petitioners visit any disputed place and the security officer become aware of it, they should advise the petitioners to avoid going there. If the petitioners still insist on going, the officer has the right to return to the police station due to petitioners’ defiance of the order.

¶23

It is clarified that there is no adjudication on merits and 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 interrogation of the petitioners are required in any cognizable case. It shall also be open for the petitioners to approach this Court again in case of any fresh threat perception.

¶24

This order shall eclipse after fifteen days from today .

¶25

Given the prayer for issuance of directions to decide the representation dated 04.11.2023 (Annexure P-3), the same be decided by the concerned Senior Superintendent of Police, within two months, either himself/herself or by authorizing and delegating it to any officer holding IPS cadre. It is clarified that such order must be a reasoned order, and the same be communicated to the representationists without delay.

¶26

There would be no need for a certified copy of this order, and any Advocate for the Petitioners and State can download this order and other relevant particulars from the official web page of this court and attest it to be a true copy. The concerned officer can also verify its authenticity and may download and use the downloaded copy for immediate use.

¶27

Petition is allowed to the extent mentioned above . All pending applications, if any, stand disposed.

¶28

(ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE

¶29

18.12.2023 anju rani Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes Whether reportable: No.

¶30

ANJU RANI 2023.12.19 15:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Ramesh Chander and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramesh Chander and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Amritpal Singh Vs State of Punjab and Another

Lalit Mohan Sharma Vs State of Haryana

Jagroop Kaur Vs State of Punjab

Devinder Singh Vs State of Punjab

Suba Singh Vs State of Punjab

Hardeep Singh Vs State of Punjab