Allowed

Shabana and Another v. State of Haryana and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC27 Aug 2024CRWP/8156/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A married adult couple apprehending threat to life from private respondents sought police protection under Article 21. The court directed the concerned SP/SHO to assess and provide protection for one week, extendable on day-to-day analysis, subject to conditions, without notice to private respondents.

What the court decided

AI extract

Shabana and Another Vs State… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Punjab & Haryana HC (2024)

¶1

CRWP No. 8156 of 2024

¶2

104 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

CRWP No. 8156 of 2024 Date of Decision: 27.08.2024

¶4

Shabana and another ...Pe oners

¶5

Versus

¶6

State of Haryana and others …Respondents

¶7

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA

¶8

Present: Mr. J.S. Rana, Advocate for the pe oners.

¶9

Mr. Vikrant Pamboo, Sr. D.A.G., Haryana.

¶10

****

¶11

ANOOP CHITKARA, J.

¶12

Apprehending threat to their lives and liberty at the hands of the private respondents, the pe oners, who claim to be married, a<er crossing eighteen years of age, have come up before this Court by invoking their fundamental rights of life guaranteed under Ar cle 21 of the Cons tu on of India, seeking direc on to the State to protect them from the private respondents.

¶13

No ces 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 no ces to the private respondents is required.

¶14

If the allega ons of apprehension of threat to their lives 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 protec on to the pe oners for one week from today. However, if the pe oners no longer require the protec on, then at their request it may be discon nued even before the expiry of one week. A<er that, the concerned officers shall extend the protec on on day-to-day analysis of the ground reali es or upon the oral or wriCen request of the pe oners.

¶15

The protec on is subject to the stringent condi on that from the me such protec on is given, the pe oners shall refrain from aCending par es, bars, picnics or any area that may pose a risk to their life. The SHO should send police officer(s) to pe oners’ home to assess the required level of security. Once the assessment is done,

¶16

¶17

Jyoti Sharma 2024.08.29 10:11 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Sector 1, Chandigarh

¶18

CRWP No. 8156 of 2024

¶19

the officer should provide adequate security without the pe oners having to contact them.

¶20

It is clarified that if the pe oners visit any disputed place and the security officer becomes aware of it, they should advise the pe oners to avoid going there. If the pe oners s ll insist on going, the officer has the right to return to the police sta on due to pe oners’ defiance of the order.

¶21

It is clarified that there is no adjudica on 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 interroga on of the pe oners are required in any cognizable case. It shall also be open for the pe oners to approach this Court again in case of any fresh threat

¶22

percep on.

¶23

This order shall eclipse a�er fi�een days from today.

¶24

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 aCest 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.

¶25

Pe!!on is allowed to the extent men oned above. All pending applica ons, if any, stand disposed.

¶26

(ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE

¶27

27.08.2024 Jyo Sharma Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes Whether reportable: No.

¶28

¶29

Jyoti Sharma 2024.08.29 10:11 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Sector 1, Chandigarh

Shabana and Another v. State of Haryana and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Shabana and Another v. State of Haryana and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vishal Vs State of Punjab

Shivam Alias Shivam Nandal Vs Union of India

Parveen Kaur and Another Vs State of Punjab and Others

M/S Instant Pharmaceuticals and Others Vs Union of India

Jasbir Singh Vs State of Punjab

Mamta Vs State of Punjab and Others