Irreversible Loss Will Be Cause If Allegations Of Threat To Life Are True: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Protection To Live-In Couple
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has come to the rescue of a live-in couple, allegedly facing threat to their lives from their families.The bench comprising Justice Anoop Chitkara allowed their plea by stating that if the allegations of apprehension turn out to be true, it might lead to an "irreversible loss". It ordered,"It shall be appropriate that the concerned Superintendent of Police,...
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has come to the rescue of a live-in couple, allegedly facing threat to their lives from their families.
The bench comprising Justice Anoop Chitkara allowed their plea by stating that if the allegations of apprehension turn out to be true, it might lead to an "irreversible loss". It ordered,
"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."
The Petitioners claimed to be in a live-in relationship after they crossed the age of majority. They argued that their fundamental rights of life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India will be violated. Thus, they sought a direction to the State to protect them from the private respondents.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the court stated that neither the response of official respondents nor the issuance of notices to the private respondents is required.
If the allegations of apprehension of threat to their lives turn out to be true, it might lead to an irreversible loss.
For the same reason and in the light of facts and circumstances peculiar to this case, the court thought it appropriate to provide protection to the petitioners for one week from the date of the judgment.
Court also specified that if it is found that the said protection is no longer required, then at the request of the petitioners, it may be discontinued even before the expiry of one week and after that, the protection will be extended on day-to-day analysis of ground realities or upon the request of the petitioners.
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.
Court further stated that this protection provided to the petitioners must not be flaunted, and places of threat must be avoided by them.
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.
Clarifying the fact that this order is no adjudication on merits and is not a blanket bail in any FIR, the court further stated that petitioners can approach it once again if there is a fresh threat perception.
To the extent mentioned above, court allowed this petition.
Case Title : Gulafsha and another v. State of Punjab and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 76