Allowed

Anju Bala and Another v. State of Punjab and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC16 Sept 2024CRWP/8981/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court directed the State Police to provide protection for one week to married petitioners fearing threats to their lives under Article 21, subject to conditions regarding location and future review.

What did the court decide?

Protection provided by concerned Superintendent of Police/SHO for one week, extendable based on ground realities or request, subject to conditions refraining from risky areas.

Anju Bala and Another Vs State of… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Punjab & Haryana HC (2024)

¶1

CRWP No. 8981 of 2024

¶2

107 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

CRWP No. 8981 of 2024 Date of Decision: 16.09.2024

¶4

Anju Bala and another

¶5

...Pe��oners

¶6

Versus

¶7

State of Punjab and others …Respondents

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA

¶9

Present: Mr. Virender Singh, Advocate for the pe��oners (through V.C.).

¶10

Ms. Swa� Batra, D.A.G., Punjab.

¶11

****

¶12

ANOOP CHITKARA, J.

¶13

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.

¶14

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.

¶15

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 wri�en request of the pe��oners.

¶16

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 a�ending 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,

¶17

¶18

Jyoti Sharma 2024.09.18 10:16 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Sector 1, Chandigarh

¶19

CRWP No. 8981 of 2024

¶20

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

¶21

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.

¶22

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 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 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.

¶25

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

¶26

(ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE

¶27

16.09.2024 Jyo� Sharma Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes Whether reportable: No.

¶28

¶29

Jyoti Sharma 2024.09.18 10:16 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Sector 1, Chandigarh

Anju Bala and Another v. State of Punjab and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anju Bala and Another 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

Sukhvir Singh and Another Vs State of Punjab and Another

Manpreet Singh and Others Vs State of Punjab and Others

Smt. Meenakshi Dahiya Vs State of Haryana

Anshika Sharma and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Saloni Tiwari and Another Vs State of Punjab and Others

Rajvir Kaur @ Jasvir Kaur and Others Vs State of Punjab and Another