Harjeev and Others Vs State of Punjab and… — Writ and Judicial Review | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

Harjeev and Others Vs State of Punjab and… — Writ and Judicial Review | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Interim protection of life and liberty: the concerned Superintendent of Police or a delegated/authorised officer to provide appropriate protection to the petitioners for one week, subject to stringent conditions (avoidance of parties, bars, picnics and risky areas; SHO-led security assessment at the petitioners' home; withdrawal of escort if petitioners defy advice regarding disputed places), extension thereafter on day-to-day analysis or on request; direction to the concerned SSP to decide the representation dated 01.07.2025 (Annexure P-8) within two months by a reasoned order communicated to the representationists; the order eclipses after fifteen days; no certified copy needed.

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioners, apprehending threat to their life and liberty at the hands of the private respondents, are entitled to protection through the State. +1 more

Court's answer

If the allegations of apprehension of threat to life turn out to be true, the concerned Superintendent of Police, or any officer to whom such powers have been delegated or authorised, shall provide appropriate protection to the petitioners for one week from the date of the order; protection may be discontinued earlier at the petitioners' request, and thereafter extended on day-to-day analysis of ground realities or upon the petitioners' oral or written request.

Ratio / Principle

The protection is subject to the stringent condition that the petitioners refrain from attending parties, bars, picnics or any area that may pose a risk to their life; the SHO shall send police officer(s) to the petitioners' home to assess the required level of security, and once assessed, adequate security shall be provided without the petitioners having to contact the officers.

Key takeaways

If the petitioners visit any disputed place, the security officer shall advise them to avoid it; if the petitioners still insist on going, the officer has the right to return to the police station due to the petitioners' defiance of the order.ratio¶21
There is no adjudication on merits; the order is not a blanket bail in any FIR; it shall not come in the way if interrogation of the petitioners is required in any cognizable case; and the petitioners may approach the Court again in case of any fresh threat perception.ratio¶22
The order shall eclipse (lapse) after fifteen days from the date of the order.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Protection of life and liberty — Petitioners Harjeev and others, apprehending threat to life at the hands of private respondents, invoked Article 226 of the Constitution seeking protection through the State. The High Court of Punjab and Haryana (Anoop Chitkara, J., oral) directed the concerned Superintendent of Police, or a delegated/authorised officer, to provide appropriate protection for one week, subject to stringent conditions: petitioners to refrain from attending parties, bars, picnics or risky areas; the SHO to send officers to assess the required security at their home and then provide adequate security proactively; on visits to disputed places the escort to advise avoidance and may withdraw if the petitioners insist. Protection beyond one week rests on day-to-day analysis of ground realities or the petitioners' request. The Court clarified there is no adjudication on merits, the order is not a blanket bail in any FIR, and it shall not obstruct interrogation in any cognizable case; the order eclipses after fifteen days. Separately, the representation dated 01.07.2025 (Annexure P-8) is to be decided by the concerned SSP within two months, by himself/herself or an IPS-cadre officer, by a reasoned order communicated to the representationists. Petition allowed to the extent mentioned; pending applications disposed.

CRWP-7818-2025 -1-

134 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CRWP-7818-2025 Date of decision: 01.09.2025

HARJEEV AND ORS. ...PETITIONERS

VERSUS

STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.

...RESPONDENTS

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA

Present: Ms. Amarinder Kaur, Advocate and Mr. Hitesh Verma, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Jasdev Singh Thind, DAG, Punjab.

ANOOP CHITKARA, J. (ORAL)

Apprehending threat to their life and liberty at the hands of the private respondents, the petitioners, invoking the fundamental right of life guaranteed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, have come up before this Court seeking protection through the State.

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.

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, 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.

The 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 petitioners’ 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.

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

Renu Bala 2025.09.03 17:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

-2-

CRWP-7818-2025

petitioners still insist on going, the officer has the right to return to the police station due to petitioners’ defiance of the order.

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 petitioners is required in any cognizable case. It shall also be open for the petitioners to approach this Court again in case of any fresh threat perception.

7. This order shall eclipse after fifteen days from today .

Given the prayer for issuance of directions to decide the representation dated 01.07.2025 (Annexure P-8), the same 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 representationists without delay.

There would be no need for a certified copy of this order, and any Advocate for the `Petitioners 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.

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

01.09.2025			(ANOOP CHITKARA)
renubala			JUDGE
	Whether speaking/reasoned:	Yes/No
	Whether reportable:	Yes/No

Renu Bala 2025.09.03 17:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document