Allowed

Sukhdev Singh v. State of Punjab and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC6 Sept 2024CRWP/8623/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner apprehending threat to life and liberty after firing at his house sought protection through the State invoking Article 21. The Court directed the Superintendent of Police or delegated officer to provide protection for one week, subject to conditions, with continued day-to-day assessment thereafter.

What did the court decide?

Police protection to petitioner for one week, extendable on day-to-day analysis or request; order eclipses after thirty days.

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

¶1

CRWP No. 8623 of 2024

¶2

107 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

CRWP No.8623 of 2024 Date of Decision: 06.09.2024

¶4

Sukhdev Singh ...Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State of Punjab and others …Respondents

¶7

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA Present: Mr. R.S. Sekhon, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶8

Ms. Swati Batra, DAG, Punjab (Through VC).

¶9

¶10

ANOOP CHITKARA, J.

¶11

Apprehending threat to his life and liberty at the hands of the private respondents because of firing at his house, 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.

¶12

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.

¶13

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 petitioner for one week from today. However, if the petitioner no longer requires the protection, then at his 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.

¶14

¶15

ANJU RANI 2024.09.06 17:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh

¶16

CRWP No. 8623 of 2024

¶17

The protection is subject to the stringent condition that from the time such protection is given, the petitioner shall not go out of his house unnecessarily and shall certainly 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 petitioner’s home to assess the required level of security. Once the assessment is done, the officer should provide adequate security without the petitioner having to contact them.

¶18

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

¶19

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 are 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.

¶20

7. This order shall eclipse after thirty days from today .

¶21

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.

¶22

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

¶23

(ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE

¶24

06.09.2024 anju rani Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes Whether reportable: No.

¶25

¶26

ANJU RANI 2024.09.06 17:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh

Sukhdev Singh v. State of Punjab and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sukhdev 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

Vijender Vs State of Haryana and Others

Joginder Singh Vs State of Haryana

Bimbo Vs State of Punjab

Harjinder Singh through His Power of Attorney Beant Singh Vs State of Punjab and Another

Lovejot Singh Johal Vs State of Punjab

Kiranjot Kaur and Another Vs State of Punjab and Others