Allowed

Dharampal v. State of Punjab and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC9 Aug 2023CRWP/996/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This petition sought protection under Article 21 due to apprehension of threat to life. The Court granted temporary protection for one week with movement restrictions, subject to review, subjecting it to specific conditions to ensure safety and prevent misuse.

What did the court decide?

Appointment of Superintendent of Police to provide protection for one week with restrictions on movement to the place of residence.

Dharampal Vs State of Punjab… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Punjab & Haryana HC (2023)

¶1

1 2023:PHHC:103068

¶2

CRWP No. 996 of 2023

¶3

215 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CRWP No. 996 of 2023 (O&M) Date of Decision: 09.08.2023

Dharampal

...Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab and others …Respondents

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA

¶10

Present: Mr. Janak Singh Bhinder, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶11

Mr. Karunesh Kaushal, AAG, Punjab.

¶12

Mr. Hitesh Chopra, Advocate for respondents No.4 to 6.

ANOOP CHITKARA, J.

CRM-W-727-2023

Allowed, as prayed for.

¶17

Reply on behalf of respondents No.4 to 6, is taken on record.

¶18

Main case

¶19

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

¶20

At the outset, counsel for the petitioner submits that he confines his prayer to the protection of life and liberty. He further submits that he will file separate petition for remaining prayers.

¶21

Given above, 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, SHO, or any officer to whom such powers have been delegated or have been authorized in this regard, provide appropriate protection to the petitioner for one week from today. However, if the petitioner 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 petitioner.

¶22

ANJU RANI 2023.08.10 17:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

2023:PHHC:103068

CRWP No. 996 of 2023

This protection is subject to the stringent condition that from the time such protection is given, the petitioner shall not go outside the boundaries of the place of residence, except for medical necessities, to buy household necessities, and for bereavements in the families of the close relatives or close friends. This restriction saves the petitioner from apprehended risk and ensures that the protection is not flaunted.

¶27

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 petitioner is required in any cognizable case. It shall also be open for the petitioner to approach this Court again in case of any fresh threat perception.

¶28

This order shall eclipse after fifteen days from today .

¶29

There would be no need for a certified copy of this order, and any Advocate for the Petitioner 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.

¶30

Petition is allowed to the extent mentioned above . Liberty reserved to file a fresh petition for remaining prayers. It is clarified that disposal of the present petition shall not come in the way if the petitioner files petition for other prayers. All pending applications, if any, stand disposed.

¶31

(ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE 09.08.2023 anju rani Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes Whether reportable: No.

¶32

ANJU RANI 2023.08.10 17:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Dharampal v. State of Punjab and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dharampal 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bajinder Singh and Others Vs State of Punjab and Others

Sapna Mishra and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Daar Singh Vs State of Punjab and Others

Pardeep Kumar and Another Vs State of Punjab and Others

Chanda Singh & Ors. Vs State of Haryana

Sunita Teji Vs State of Punjab and Others