Allowed

Jamil Ahmed v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC24 Sept 2024CRWP/9201/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought police protection citing threat to life and liberty. The court directed the concerned SP/SHO to provide appropriate protection for one week, subject to security assessment and restrictions on the petitioner's movements, with protection to lapse after fifteen days.

What did the court decide?

Police protection for one week via SP/SHO, extendable on day-to-day analysis; order lapses after fifteen days; no adjudication on merits.

Jamil Ahmed Vs State of Haryana and Ors. — Bail and Remand | Punjab & Haryana HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

CRWP No.9201 of 2024 279 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

CRWP No.9201 of 2024

¶4

Date of Decision: 24.09.2024

¶5

Jamil Ahmed ...Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State of Haryana and others …Respondents

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA

¶9

Present: Mr. Jamshed Ahmed, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶10

Mr. Aashish Bishnoi, DAG, Haryana.

¶11

¶12

ANOOP CHITKARA, J.

¶13

Apprehending threat to life and liberty at the hands of the private respondents, the petitioner, invoking the fundamental right of life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, has come up before this Court seeking protection through the State.

¶14

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.

¶15

If the allegations 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 protection to the petitioner for one week from today. However, if the petitioner no longer requires 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 petitioner.

¶16

The protection is subject to the stringent condition that from the time such protection is given, the petitioner shall not go out of his house unnecessarily and shall certainly refrain from attending parties, bars, picnics or any area that may pose a risk to ANJU RANI their life. The SHO should send police officer(s) to petitioner’s home to assess the 2024.09.27 10:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh

¶17

¶18

CRWP No.9201 of 2024 required level of security. Once the assessment is done, the officer should provide adequate security without the petitioner having to contact them.

¶19

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.

¶20

This order shall eclipse after fifteen days from today .

¶21

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.

¶22

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

¶23

(ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE 24.09.2024 anju rani Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes Whether reportable: No.

¶24

ANJU RANI 2024.09.27 10:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh

Jamil Ahmed v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jamil Ahmed v. State of Haryana and Ors.

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

Goldy and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Joginder Singh Vs Harpreet Singh

Pardeep Kumar Vs the State of Punjab and Others

Geeta Kumari and Anr. Vs State of Haryana and Others

Rakesh Kumar Vs Rakesh Kumar and Ors.

Ravi Pal Singh Vs State of Punjab and Another