Allowed

Gaurav Singh v. State of Punjab and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC11 Sept 2024CRWP/8749/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner apprehended threat to life and liberty from private respondents and sought police protection via a mandamus writ under Article 226. The court directed the Senior Superintendent of Police to decide his pending representation within two months by a reasoned order, reserving liberty to pursue fresh remedies, without adjudication on merits.

What did the court decide?

SSP directed to decide representation dated 02.09.2024 within two months by reasoned order; liberty to pursue legal remedies reserved.

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

¶1

¶2

CRWP No.8749 of 2024

¶3

105 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CRWP No.8749 of 2024 Date of Decision : 11.09.2024

¶5

Gaurav Singh ... Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and Others … Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA Present : Mr. Vikas Kumar Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Swati Batra, (Through VC), DAG, Punjab. ****

¶6

ANOOP CHITKARA, J.

¶7

Apprehending threat to their life and liberty at the hands of the private respondents and seeking directions to respondent Nos.2 & 3, the petitioner has come up before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the nature of mandamus .

¶8

After arguing for some time, counsel for the petitioner submits that he would be contended and satisfied in case his representation dated 02.09.2024 (Annexure P-3) be decided in a time bound manner.

¶9

Notices are 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.

¶10

Let representation dated 02.09.2024 (Annexure P-3) be decided by the concerned Senior Superintendent of Police, within two months, either himself/herself or by authorizing and delegating it to any officer holding IPS cadre. It is clarified that such order must be a reasoned order, and the same be communicated to the representationist without delay.

¶11

Liberty reserved to the petitioner to file fresh petition or to take other legal remedies in accordance with the law.

¶12

It is clarified that there is no adjudication on merits. It is further clarified that this order shall not come in the way if the petitioner is required for interrogation in any cognizable case.

¶13

Sonia Puri 2024.09.12 09:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶14

¶15

CRWP No.8749 of 2024

¶16

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.

¶17

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

¶18

( ANOOP CHITKARA ) JUDGE

¶19

11.09.2024

¶20

Sonia Puri Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes Whether reportable: No.

¶21

Sonia Puri 2024.09.12 09:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Gaurav Singh v. State of Punjab and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gaurav 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

Deepak @ Challu Vs State of Haryana

Sukhwinder Singh Vs Ritu Bawa

Jaskaran Kumar Vs State of Punjab

Rajbir Singh Alias Ram Vs State of Punjab

Arti Bansal and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Kirna Devi and Another Vs State of Punjab and Others