IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Anoop Chitkara, J.
Rajesh Kumar & Anr. - Appellants
Versus
State of Punjab & Ors. - Respondents
Criminal Writ Petition No. 334 of 2023
Decided On : 16-01-2023
Article 21 - Right to Life - The court granted protection to the petitioner invoking the fundamental right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, subject to certain conditions to mitigate the apprehended risk.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought protection under Article 21 of the Constitution of India due to fear for life and liberty at the hands of private respondents. The court granted protection subject to specific conditions.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's apprehension of threat to life warranted protection, and therefore granted protection subject to stringent conditions.
Issues: The main issue was the petitioner's fear for life and liberty at the hands of private respondents, invoking the fundamental right of life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the need to protect the petitioner's fundamental right to life under Article 21, while also ensuring that the protection granted was not misused.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petition to the extent mentioned, granting protection to the petitioner subject to specific conditions and clarifying that the order shall not come in the way if the petitioner's interrogation is required in any cognizable case.
JUDGMENT
Anoop Chitkara, J. - Fearing for 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. 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 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.
4. This protection is subject to the stringent condition that from the time such protection is given, the petitioner shall not go outside the boundaries of the place of residence, except for medical necessities, to buy household necessities, and for bereavements in the families of the close relatives or close friends. This restriction saves the petitioner from apprehended risk and ensures that the protection is not flaunted.
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 petitioner 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.
6. This order shall eclipse after thirty days from today.
7. 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.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the court's authority to grant protection under Article 21 of the Constitution of India to safeguard the petitioner's right to life, subject to ....
The fundamental right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India can be invoked to seek protection in cases of apprehension of threat to life.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the court's authority to grant protection under Article 21 of the Constitution of India to safeguard the fundamental rights of individuals again....
Article 21 of the Constitution of India can be invoked to provide immediate protection to individuals from apprehended threat to their lives and liberty.
The court's decision was guided by the need to protect the fundamental right to life under Article 21 in the face of apprehended risk.
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 ....
The central legal point established in the judgment is the court's authority to grant protection to individuals invoking their fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, in the....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.