Paramjeet Singh And Another v. State Of Punjab And Others
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 13.03.2024 Paramjit Singh and another
...Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and others
...Respondents
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA
Present:
Mr. P.S. Sekhon, Advocate for the petitioners.
Ms. Swati Batra, DAG, Punjab (Through VC).
**** ANOOP CHITKARA, J.
Fearing for life and liberty at the hands of the police officials, the petitioners, invoking the fundamental right of life guaranteed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, have come up before this Court seeking protection through the State as police official of police Station Samana (Sadar Samana) are pressurizing the petitioner to compromise in case registered at his instance in FIR No.36 dated 23.10.2023.
2.
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. 3.
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 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 petitioners.
4.
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 in case, petitioners are called for any investigation in any other case by the Vigilance Bureau, Patiala, they shall go and cooperate with the investigator. 5.
It is clarified that if the petitioners visit any disputed place and the security officer become 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. 6.
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 are 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.
As far as representation dated 20.02.2024 (Annexure P-5) is concerned, counsel for the petitioner submits that he would be satisfied if directions are issued to respondent No.3 to decide the said representation by passing a speaking and reasoned order within time bound manner.
8.
Prayer is not opposed.
9.
Given above, let respondent No.3-Superintendent of Police, Patiala, District Patiala, to decide the representation dated 20.02.2024 (Annexure P-5) by passing a speaking and reasoned order within one month from today. It is clarified that such order must be a reasoned order, and the same be communicated to the representationists as well as his counsel, without any delay. Counsel for the petitioner to inform State counsel his as well as petitioner's e-mail ID, so that the concerned officer could communicate them outcome.
10.
In case, the grievance of the petitioner still exists, he shall be at liberty to avail legal remedy in accordance with law including approaching this Court. 11.
This order shall eclipse after fifteen days from today.
12.
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.
(ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE 13.03.2024 anju rani Whether speaking/reasoned:
Yes Whether reportable:
No.