Punjab-Haryana High Court
Raman Kumar And Anr vs State Of Punjab And Ors on 12 November, 2024
Author: Anoop Chitkara
Bench: Anoop Chitkara
CRWP No. 10873 of 2024
128 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRWP No. 10873 of 2024
Date of Decision: 12.11.2024
Raman Kumar and another ...Pe oners
Versus
State of Punjab and others ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA
Present: Ms. Poonam Saroya, Advocate
for the pe oners.
Ms. Swa Batra, D.A.G., Punjab.
****
ANOOP CHITKARA, J.
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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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
authenticity of this order/judgment
High Court, Sector 1, Chandigarh
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.
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. This order shall eclipse a er fi een days from today.
8. Since this order shall eclipse a er fi een days, therefore, the concerned
PSO shall also return back. A er that, if the concerned Senior Superintendent of Police
wants to provide any further security, he/she may provide at his/her own level and not
based on the order of this Court.
9. 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.
Pe on is allowed to the extent men oned above. All pending
applica ons, if any, stand disposed.
(ANOOP CHITKARA)
JUDGE
12.11.2024
Jyo Sharma
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes
Whether reportable: No.
authenticity of this order/judgment
High Court, Sector 1, Chandigarh
