Allowed

Sangeeta and Another v. State of Punjab and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC17 Sept 2024CRWP/9026/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Newly married couple fearing threats from private respondents sought protection under Article 21. Court directed SP/SHO to provide protection for one week, extendable based on ground realities, with conditions restricting risky outings. Order eclipses after fifteen days; petition allowed accordingly.

What did the court decide?

Police protection to petitioners for one week, extendable on day-to-day analysis of ground realities or request; order valid fifteen days.

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

¶1

¶2

CRWP No.9026 of 2024

¶3

127 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CRWP No.9026 of 2024 Date of Decision : 17.09.2024 Sangeeta and Another ... Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and Others … Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA Present: Mr. Goldy Jakhar, Advocate for the petitioners. Ms. Swati Batra, DAG, Punjab.

¶5

¶6

ANOOP CHITKARA, J.

¶7

Apprehending threat to their lives and liberty at the hands of the private respondents, the petitioners who claim to have married after attaining the permissible age for marriage, against the wishes of the private respondents, have come up before this Court by invoking their fundamental rights of life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, seeking direction to the State to protect them.

¶8

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.

¶9

If the allegations 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 protection to the petitioners for one week from today. However, if the petitioners no longer require the protection, then at their 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 petitioners.

¶10

Sonia Puri 2024.09.18 10:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶11

¶12

CRWP No.9026 of 2024

¶13

This protection is subject to the stringent condition that from the time such protection is given, the petitioners shall 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 petitioners having to contact them.

¶14

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

¶15

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 is 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.

¶16

This order shall eclipse after fifteen days from today .

¶17

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.

¶18

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

¶19

( ANOOP CHITKARA ) JUDGE 17.09.2024 Sonia Puri Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes Whether reportable: No.

¶20

Sonia Puri 2024.09.18 10:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Sangeeta and Another v. State of Punjab and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sangeeta 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

Bhima Nath Vs State of Punjab and Others

Anju Bala and Another Vs State of Punjab and Others

Narinder Pal Singh Walia Vs S.K Bhatia

Gobind Singh Vs State of Punjab

Riya Singh and Another Vs State of Punjab and Others

Randhir Singh and Another Vs State of Punjab and Another