Punjab and Haryana High Court: In a petition seeking directions for the State to protect a couple who claimed to have married after attaining permissible age by invoking the fundamental right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, Anoop Chitkara, J. extended protection for the petitioner couple for a week with some conditions.
The instant matter was registered on 15-07-2023 and listed urgently. The petitioners claimed to have married after attaining permissible age of marriage against the wishes of private respondents. The couple feared for their life and liberty at the hands of private respondents and sought directions from the Court towards State to protect them.
The Court noted that it might bring an irreversible loss if the allegations of petitioners’ apprehension of threat to their lives happened to be true. Hence, based on the peculiar facts and circumstances in the instant case, the Court found it appropriate for the police officer concerned to provide appropriate protection to the petitioners for a week. If the petitioners no longer required the said protection, the same may be discontinued at their request even before the expiry of one week. The Court made it clear that the order shall eclipse after fifteen days from the date of order.
The Court further directed the officers concerned to extend the petitioners’ protection on a day-to-day analysis of ground realities or based on oral/written request by the petitioners.
The Court subjected the protection extended to the petitioners to a stringent condition that after protection is granted through the instant order, the petitioners shall not step out of the boundaries of their residence except for medical necessities, to buy household necessities, and for bereavements in the close relatives or close friends. The Court allowed the petitioners to shift their residence and extended the protection if the new place fell within the district. The Court expressed that “such restriction saves the petitioner from apprehended risk and ensures that the protection is not flaunted.”
The Court clarified that the matter was not adjudicated on merits and the instant order was not a blanket bail in any First Information Report (‘FIR’), not coming in the way of any interrogation of the petitioners required in any case involving cognizable offence. The Court also left it open for the parties to approach the Court regarding any fresh threat perception.
[Ramandeep Kaur v. State of Haryana, 2023 SCC OnLine P&H 949, decided on 18-07-2023]
Order by: Justice Anoop Chitkara
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For Petitioners: Advocate Jasbir Singh Mohri;
For State: Additional Advocate General Rajat Gautam.
Buy Constitution of India HERE
