Rajwinder Singh And ANR v. State Of Haryana And ORS
CRWP-6949-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH CRWP-6949-2024 (O&M) Date of order: 25.07.2024 Rajwinder Singh & another ... Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of Haryana & others
...Respondent (s)
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA Present:- Mr. Rajwinder Singh, Advocate for the petitioner(s).
Mr. Ashish Bishnoi, DAG, Haryana.
*** ANOOP CHITKARA, J.
Apprehending threat to his 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.
2.
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.
3.
This protection is subject to the stringent condition that from the time such protection is given, the petitioner 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 assessment is done, ASHWANI KUMAR 2024.07.26 11:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh
CRWP-6949-2024 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 petitioners still insist on going, the officer has the right to return to the police station due to petitioners' defiance of the order. 4.
At this stage, the petitioner submits that he has also filed a representation (Annexure P-5) to respondent no.2 but no action has been taken thereon. 5.
Let the representation (Annexure P-5) be decided by respondent no.2 within a period of two months from today.
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 petitioner(s) 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.
7.
This order shall eclipse after fifteen days from today. 8.
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.
Petition is allowed to the extent mentioned above. All pending applications, if any, stand disposed.
(ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE July 25, 2024 AK Whether speaking/reasoned :
Yes Whether reportable :
No ASHWANI KUMAR 2024.07.26 11:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh