Sapana Devi and another vs State of Punjab and others

Anoop Chitkara, J

Apprehending threat to their lives and liberty at the hands of the private respondents, the pe oners, who claim to be married, a er crossing eighteen years of age, have come up before this Court by invoking their fundamental rights of life guaranteed under Ar cle 21 of the Cons tu on of India, seeking direc on to the State to protect them from the private respondents.

No ces 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 no ces to the private respondents is required.

If the allega ons 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 protec on to the pe oners for one week from today.

However, if the pe oners no longer require the protec  on, then at their request it may

be discon nued even before the expiry of one week. A er that, the concerned officers shall extend the protec on on day-to-day analysis of the ground reali es or upon the oral or wri en request of the pe oners.

The protec  on is subject to the stringent condi  on that from the  me such protec on is given, the pe oners shall refrain from a ending par es, bars, picnics or any area that may pose a risk to their life. The SHO should send police officer(s) to pe oners’ home to assess the required level of security. Once the assessment is done, the officer should provide adequate security without the pe oners having to contact them.

It is clarified that if the pe oners visit any disputed place and the security officer becomes aware of it, they should advise the pe oners to avoid going there. If the pe oners s  ll insist on going, the officer has the right to return to the police station due to pe oners’ defiance of the order.

It is clarified that there is no adjudica on 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 interroga on of the pe oners are required in any cognizable case. It shall also be open for the pe oners to approach this Court again in case of any fresh threat percep on.

This order shall eclipse a er fi een days from today.

Since this order shall eclipse a er fi een days, therefore, the concerned PSO shall also return back. A er 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.

There would be no need for a cer fied copy of this order, and any Advocate for the Petitioner and State can download this order and other relevant par culars from the official web page of this court and a est it to be a true copy. The concerned officer can also verify its authen city and may download and use the downloaded copy for immediate use.

Petition is allowed to the extent men oned above. All pending applica ons, if any, stand disposed.