Gurwinder Singh Dhillon v. State Of Punjab And ORS

CRWP No.9989 of 2024

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CRWP No. 9989 of 2024 Date of Decision: 18.10.2024 Gurwinder Singh Dhillon ...PeƟƟoner

Versus

State of Punjab and others

...Respondents

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA

Present:

Mr. G.B.S. Dhillon, Advocate for the peƟƟoner.

Ms. SwaƟ Batra, D.A.G., Punjab.

**** ANOOP CHITKARA, J.

Apprehending for life and liberty at the hands of the private respondents, the peƟƟoner, invoking the fundamental right of life guaranteed under ArƟcle 226 of the ConsƟtuƟon of India, has come up before this Court seeking protecƟon through the State.

2.

NoƟces 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 noƟces to the private respondents is required 3.

If the allegaƟons 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 protecƟon to the peƟƟoner for one week from today. However, if the peƟƟoner no longer requires the protecƟon, then at their request, it may be disconƟnued even before the expiry of two weeks. AŌer that, the concerned officers shall extend the protecƟon on day-to-day analysis of the ground realiƟes or upon the oral or wriƩen request of the peƟƟoner. 4.

The protecƟon is subject to the stringent condiƟon that from the Ɵme such protecƟon is given, the peƟƟoners shall refrain from aƩending parƟes, bars, picnics Jyoti Sharma 2024.10.19 10:11 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Sector 1, Chandigarh

CRWP No.9989 of 2024 or any area that may pose a risk to their life. The SHO should send police officer(s) to peƟƟoners' home to assess the required level of security. Once the assessment is done, the officer should provide adequate security without the peƟƟoners having to contact them. This order is further subject to the condiƟon that the peƟƟoner shall keep on blocking the phone numbers from where he received threatening calls. 5.

It is clarified that there is no adjudicaƟon 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 interrogaƟon of the peƟƟoner is required in any cognizable case. It shall also be open for the peƟƟoner to approach this Court again in case of any fresh threat percepƟon.

6.

This order shall eclipse aŌer one month from today. 7.

There would be no need for a cerƟfied copy of this order, and any Advocate for the PeƟƟoner and State can download this order and other relevant parƟculars from the official web page of this court and aƩest it to be a true copy. The concerned officer can also verify its authenƟcity and may download and use the downloaded copy for immediate use.

PeƟƟon is allowed to the extent menƟoned above. All pending applicaƟons, if any, stand disposed.

(ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE 18.10.2024 JyoƟ Sharma Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes Whether reportable :

No.

Jyoti Sharma 2024.10.19 10:11 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Sector 1, Chandigarh