Allowed

Rajneesh Gupta v. State of Punjab and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC9 Sept 2024CRWP/8661/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anoop Chitkar granted police protection to the petitioner for two weeks (extendable) under Article 21 due to apprehended threat to life, subject to conditions restricting the petitioner's movement.

What did the court decide?

Police protection provided to the petitioner for two weeks, extendable based on daily assessment of ground realities, subject to conditions regarding movement.

Rajneesh Gupta Vs State of Pun… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Punjab & Haryana HC (2024)

¶1

CRWP-8661-2024

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

145 CRWP-8661-2024 Date of Decision: 09.09.2024

Rajneesh Gupta

...Pe��oner

Versus

State of Punjab and others …Respondents

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA

¶10

Present: Mr. Chiranshu Ra$an, Advocate for the pe��oner.

¶11

Ms. Swa� Batra, D.A.G., Punjab. (through video conferencing).

¶12

¶13

ANOOP CHITKARA, J.

¶14

Apprehending threat to life and liberty at the hands of the private respondents, the pe��oner, invoking the fundamental right of life guaranteed under Ar�cle 21 of the Cons�tu�on of India, has come up before this Court seeking protec�on through the State.

¶15

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

¶16

If the allega�ons 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 protec�on to the pe��oner for two weeks from today. However, if the pe��oner no longer requires the protec�on, then at his request, it may be discon�nued even before the expiry of two weeks. 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 wri$en request of the pe��oner.

¶17

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

¶18

JYOTI 2024.09.12 10:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.

¶19

CRWP-8661-2024

¶20

¶21

the officer should provide adequate security without the pe��oner having to contact him.

¶22

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

¶23

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��oner is required in any cognizable case. It shall also be open for the pe��oner to approach this Court again in case of any fresh threat percep�on.

¶24

This order shall eclipse a�er twenty days from today .

¶25

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.

¶26

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

¶27

(ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE 09.09.2024 Jyo�-II Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes Whether reportable: No.

¶28

JYOTI 2024.09.12 10:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.

Rajneesh Gupta v. State of Punjab and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajneesh Gupta 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

Meena Pothireddy Vs M/S Tecno Doors Pvt. Ltd.

Meena Pothireddy Vs M/S Tecno Doors Pvt. Ltd.

Meena Pothireddy Vs M/S Tecno Doors Pvt. Ltd.

Rajesh Kumar Chauhan Vs Rakesh Sharma

Shaheed Vs State of Haryana and Others

Anil Vs State of Haryana