Ravi v. State Of Punjab And Others

CRWP No. 10482 of 2024

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CRWP No. 10482 of 2024 Date of Decision: 29.10.2024 Ravi ...PeƟƟoner

Versus

State of Punjab and others

...Respondents

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA

Present:

Mr. Munish GulaƟ, Advocate for the peƟƟoner.

Ms. SwaƟ Batra, D.A.G., Punjab.

**** ANOOP CHITKARA, J.

1.

Seeking issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus for protecƟng the life and liberty of the peƟƟoner at the hands of respondents No.5 to 7, the peƟƟoner has come up before this Court under ArƟcle 226 of ConsƟtuƟon of India. 2.

Counsel for the peƟƟoner submits that the peƟƟoner would be contended and saƟsfied if he is permiƩed to file a fresh representaƟon before the Senior Superintendent of Police within 15 days and the concerned officer is directed to decide the same in a Ɵme bound manner. Counsel for the peƟƟoner withdraws representaƟon dated 02.07.2024 (Annexure P-3). 3.

NoƟce served upon the official respondent through State counsel. The nature of order which this Court proposes to pass, there is no necessity of calling any response from the State.

4.

State counsel submits that they would take decision on the fresh representaƟon, if any filed.

5.

In view of prayer made by counsel for the peƟƟoner, he is permiƩed to file fresh representaƟon before the Senior Superintendent of Police within 15 days menƟoning his e-mail ID as well as of his counsel and the Senior Superintendent of Jyoti Sharma 2024.10.29 17:23 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Sector 1, Chandigarh

CRWP No. 10482 of 2024 Police is directed to decide the same, if filed either himself/herself or by delegaƟng the same to any officer not below the rank of PPS, within a period of two months by passing a speaking and reasoned order and such order be also communicated to the peƟƟoner as well as his counsel on the e-mail ID provided on the representaƟon. 6.

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 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 peƟƟoner. 7.

This order shall eclipse aŌer fiŌeen days.

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. 8.

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. 9.

PeƟƟon is disposed of with the observaƟons menƟoned above. All pending applicaƟons, if any, stand disposed.

(ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE 29.10.2024 JyoƟ Sharma Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes Whether reportable:

No.

Jyoti Sharma 2024.10.29 17:23 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Sector 1, Chandigarh