SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(P&H) 417

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Anoop Chitkara, J.
Gulafsha & Anr. – Appellants
Versus
State Of Punjab & Ors. – Respondents
CRWP No. 3329 of 2022
Decided On : 12-04-2022

Advocates Appeared:
Mr. Kulwant Singh Dhanora, Advocate, for the Appellant, Mr. R. S. Khaira, Aag, Punjab, for the Respondent.

Article 21 of the Constitution of India can be invoked to provide protection from apprehended threat to life and liberty, with the court having the discretion to impose conditions and clarifications to the protection order.

Headnote:

Article 21 - Protection from Threat - The court invoked Article 21 of the Constitution of India to provide protection to petitioners in a live-in relationship from apprehended threat to their lives and liberty by private respondents.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioners, claiming to be in a live-in relationship, sought protection from the State against apprehended threat to their lives and liberty by private respondents.

Finding of the Court:

The court directed the concerned authorities to provide protection to the petitioners for one week, with the option to extend based on ground realities or the petitioners' request. The petitioners were also cautioned not to flaunt the protection and to avoid visiting areas perceived as threatening. The court clarified that the order was not a blanket bail and did not prevent interrogation in any cognizable case. The petitioners were also given the option to approach the court again in case of fresh threat perception.

Issues: Protection from apprehended threat, conditions of the protection order, clarification on the nature of the order, and disposal of pending applications.

Ratio Decidendi: The court invoked Article 21 to provide protection to the petitioners from apprehended threat, while also imposing conditions and clarifications to the protection order.

Final Decision: The petition was allowed to the extent mentioned above, and all pending applications were disposed.

ORDER

Anoop Chitkara, J. - Fearing for their lives and liberty at the hands of the private respondents, the petitioners who claim to be in a live-in relationship, after crossing eighteen years of age, have come up before this Court by invoking their fundamental rights of life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, seeking direction to the State to protect them from the private respondents.

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 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 protection to the petitioners for one week from today. However, if the petitioners no longer require 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. This order is subject to the condition that from the time such protection is granted, the petitioners shall not flaunt it and shall avoid visiting areas where there may be a threat to their lives according to their perception.

5. 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 is required in any cognizable case. It shall also be open for the petitioner(s) to approach this Court again in case of any fresh threat perception.

6. 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.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top