Disposed

Ranjit Singh v. State of Punjab and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC13 Nov 2024CRM-M/114/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court directed the SHO to assess the petitioner's threat perception and provide protection if warranted, clarifying that the order did not constitute blanket bail or an adjudication on merits. The order was limited to fifteen days.

What did the court decide?

Directions to SHO to assess threat perception and provide protection if warranted; order limited to fifteen days.

Ranjit Singh Vs State of Punjab and Others — Bail and Remand | Punjab & Haryana HC (2024)

¶1

CRM-M No. 114 of 2022

¶2

278

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

¶4

AT CHANDIGARH

¶5

CRM-M No. 114 of 2022

¶6

Date of Decision: 13.11.2024

Ranjit Singh

...Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab and others …Respondents

¶11

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA

¶12

Present: Mr. K.S. Brar, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶13

Mr. Akshay Kumar, A.A.G., Punjab.

¶14

¶15

ANOOP CHITKARA, J.

¶16

FIR No.	Dated	Police Station	Sections
211	27.09.2021	Samrala, District Ludhiana	447, 506 IPC

¶17

Seeking issuance of directions to respondent No.2 to take action against respondent No.3 and also to transfer the investigation of FIR captioned above, the petitioner has come up before this Court under Section 482 CrPC.

¶18

State counsel submits that the present petition has rendered infructuous as challan has already been presented.

¶19

At this stage, counsel for the petitioner submits that adequate protection be provided to the petitioner as he has aprehension of danger to life and liberty at the hands of respondents No.5 and 6.

¶20

Given above, the concerned SHO to assess threat perception of the petitioner. If the concerned SHO finds threat perception to be true, then he may provide protection on the basis of day to day analysis.

¶21

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.

¶22

¶23

Jyoti Sharma 2024.11.18 13:57 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Sector 1, Chandigarh

¶24

CRM-M No. 114 of 2022

¶25

6. . This order shall eclipse a�er f�een days from todayi

¶26

Since this order shall eclipse a�er fi�een days, therefore, if any PSO is deputed, in that case the concerned PSO shall also return back. A�er that, if the concerned Senior Superintendent of Police wants to provide any further security, he/she may provide at his/her own level and not based on the order of this Court.

¶27

There would be no need for a cer�fied copy of this order, and any Advocate for the Pe��oner and State can download this order and other relevant par�culars from the official web page of this court and a�est it to be a true copy. The concerned officer can also verify its authen�city and may download and use the downloaded copy for immediate use.

¶28

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

¶29

(ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE 13.11.2024 Jyoti Sharma Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes Whether reportable: No.

¶30

¶31

Jyoti Sharma 2024.11.18 13:57 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Sector 1, Chandigarh

Ranjit Singh v. State of Punjab and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ranjit Singh 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

Balwan Singh Vs State of Haryana and Anr.

Darshan Singh Alias Raju Vs State of Punjab

Vikram Kumar Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Manjit Singh Vs State of Punjab

Ashok Kumar Alias Shoki Vs State of Punjab

Komal Vs State of Haryana