Allowed

Manju and Another v. State of Ut Chandigarh and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC13 Sept 2024CRWP/8887/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order granted police protection to live-in relationship partners facing life threats under Article 21. Protection was authorized for one week with subsequent day-to-day extension contingent on ground realities, subject to strict conditions regarding the petitioners' conduct and movement.

What did the court decide?

Police protection for one week, renewable on day-to-day analysis, subject to conditions restricting petitioners from risky areas.

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

¶1

CRWP No. 8887-2024 (O&M)

¶2

¶3

125 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CRWP No. 8887 of 2024 (O&M) Date of Decision: 13.09.2024

Manju and another

...Pe��oners

Versus

State of UT Chandigarh and others …Respondents

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA

¶10

Present: Mr. Virender Kumar Dhiman, Advocate for the pe��oners.

¶11

Mr. Tarun Vir Singh Lehal, Addl. P.P., U.T., Chandigarh.

¶12

¶13

ANOOP CHITKARA, J.

¶14

CRM-W-1145-2024

¶15

Applica�on is allowed as prayed for.

¶16

CRWP No. 8887 of 2024

¶17

Apprehending for their lives and liberty at the hands of the private respondents, the pe��oners, who claim to be in a live-in rela�onship, a7er 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.

¶18

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

¶19

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. A7er that, the concerned officers shall extend the protec�on on day-to-day analysis of the ground reali�es or upon the oral or wriBen request of the pe��oners.

¶20

JYOTI 2024.09.16 09:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.

¶21

CRWP No. 8887-2024 (O&M) 2

¶22

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

¶23

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.

¶24

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��oner(s) to approach this Court again in case of any fresh threat percep�on.

¶25

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

¶26

There would be no need for a cer�fied copy of this order, and any Advocate for the Pe��oners 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.

¶27

Pe22on is allowed to the extent men2oned above . All pending applica�ons, if any, stand disposed.

¶28

(ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE

¶29

13.09.2024 Jyo�-II Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes Whether reportable: No.

¶30

JYOTI 2024.09.16 09:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.

Manju and Another v. State of Ut Chandigarh and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manju and Another v. State of Ut Chandigarh 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

Anuradha and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Others

Ishwar Vs the State of Punjab and Others

Rajat Bhatia Vs Jatin Chawla

Kulwant Singh @ Vadda @ Kulwant Singh Wada Vs State of Punjab

Avtar Singh Vs State of Punjab

Anchal and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.