Varsha And Another v. State Of Punjab And Others
CRWP No. 10363-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH CRWP No. 10363 of 2024 Date of Decision: 25.10.2024 Varsha and another ...PeƟƟoners
Versus
State of Punjab and others
...Respondents
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA
Present:
Mr. Yash Garg, Advocate for the peƟƟƟoners.
Ms. SwaƟ Batra, D.A.G., Punjab.
**** ANOOP CHITKARA, J.
Apprehending threat to their lives and liberty at the hands of the private respondents, the peƟƟoners, who claim to have married aŌer aƩaining the permissible age for marriage, against the wishes of the private respondents, have come up before this Court by invoking their fundamental rights of life guaranteed under ArƟcle 21 of the ConsƟtuƟon of India, seeking direcƟon to the State to protect them from the private respondents.
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 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 protecƟon to the peƟƟoners for one week from today. However, if the peƟƟoners no longer require the protecƟon, then at their request it may be disconƟnued even before the expiry of one week. 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 peƟƟoners.
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 or any area that may pose a risk to their life. The SHO should send police officer(s) to JYOTI 2024.10.28 10:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.
CRWP No. 10363-2024 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.
5.
It is clarified that if the peƟƟoners visit any disputed place and the security officer becomes aware of it, they should advise the peƟƟoners to avoid going there. If the peƟƟoners sƟll insist on going, the officer has the right to return to the police staƟon due to peƟƟoners' defiance of the order.
6.
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 peƟƟoners are required in any cognizable case. It shall also be open for the peƟƟoner(s) to approach this Court again in case of any fresh threat percepƟon.
7.
This order shall eclipse aŌer fiŌeen days from today. 8.
Since this order shall eclipse aŌer fiŌeen days, therefore, the concerned PSO shall also return back. AŌer 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 cerƟfied copy of this order, and any Advocate for the PeƟƟoners 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 25.10.2024 JyoƟ-II Whether speaking/reasoned:
Yes Whether reportable:
No.
JYOTI 2024.10.28 10:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.