CRWP-9956-2025 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 120 CRWP-9956-2025 Date of Decision: 12.09.2025 PALAK AND ANOTHER ...Peoners Versus STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS …Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA Present: Mr. Rahul Garg, Advocate for the peoners. Ms. Pooja Nayar Sharma, D.A.G., Punjab. **** ANOOP CHITKARA, J. Apprehending threat to their lives and liberty at the hands of the private respondents, the peoners, who claim to have married a(er a)aining the permissible age for marriage, against the wishes of the private respondents, have come up before this Court by invoking their fundamental rights of life guaranteed under Arcle 21 of the Constuon of India, seeking direcon to the State to protect them from the private respondents. 2. Noces 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 noces to the private respondents is required. 3. If the allegaons 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 protecon to the peoners for one week from today. However, if the peoners no longer require the protecon, then at their request it may be disconnued even before the expiry of one week. A(er that, the concerned officers shall extend the protecon on day-to-day analysis of the ground realies or upon the oral or wri)en request of the peoners. 4. The protecon is subject to the stringent condion that from the me such protecon is given, the peoners shall refrain from a)ending pares, bars, picnics or any area that may pose a risk to their life. The SHO should send police officer(s) to JYOTI 2025.09.12 17:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRWP-9956-2025 2 peoners’ home to assess the required level of security. Once the assessment is done, the officer should provide adequate security without the peoners having to contact them. 5. It is clarified that if the peoners visit any disputed place and the security officer becomes aware of it, they should advise the peoners to avoid going there. If the peoners sll insist on going, the officer has the right to return to the police staon due to peoners’ defiance of the order. 6. It is clarified that there is no adjudicaon 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 interrogaon of the peoners are required in any cognizable case. It shall also be open for the peoner(s) to approach this Court again in case of any fresh threat percepon. 7. This order shall eclipse aer fieen days from today. 8. 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. 9. There would be no need for a cerfied copy of this order, and any Advocate for the Peoners and State can download this order and other relevant parculars from the official web page of this court and aest it to be a true copy. The concerned officer can also verify its authencity and may download and use the downloaded copy for immediate use. Pe,,on is allowed to the extent men,oned above. All pending applicaons, if any, stand disposed. (ANOOP CHITKARA) 12.09.2025 JUDGE Jyo-II Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes Whether reportable: No. JYOTI 2025.09.12 17:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.