SUKHPREET SINGH AND ANR vs STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS — CRWP/5441/2026

Disposed: --DISPOSED OF on 11th May 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: PHHC010787482026

Filing Number

CRWP/36743/2026

Filing Date

07-May-2026

Registration No

CRWP/5441/2026

Registration Date

07-May-2026

Judge

Mr. Justice Subhas Mehla

Coram

Mr. Justice Subhas Mehla

Bench Type

Single

Category

47.5 - PROTECTION ( 195 )

Judicial Branch

CRIMINAL BRANCH

Decision Date

11-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

--DISPOSED OF

Last updated 01-Jun-2026

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.SUKHPREET SINGH AND ANR

    Adv. ANKUSH THAKRAL

  2. 2.STATE OF PUNJAB

  3. 3.SSP, AMRITSAR

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS

  2. 2.STATE OF PUNJAB

  3. 3.SSP, AMRITSAR

  4. 4.SHO (Station House Officer), PS (Police Station) AJNALA, AMRITSAR

  5. 5.RAJ KAUR

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 11-May-2026

    Mr. Justice Subhas MehlaView PDF

    Case Summary: CRWP/5441/2026 The High Court of Punjab and Haryana directed the Senior Superintendent of Police, Amritsar, to provide police protection to Sukhpreet Singh and another (both adults in a live-in relationship) after assessing threat perception, recognizing that the fundamental right to life and liberty must be protected regardless of marriage status. The court's order was made conditional on verification that petitioner No.2 is of majority age; if found to be minor, authorities may pursue action under the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 and POCSO Act, 2012. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 07-May-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. CRWP/5441/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: CRWP/5441/2026 The High Court of Punjab and Haryana directed the Senior Superintendent of Police, Amritsar, to provide police protection to Sukhpreet Singh and another (both adults in a live-in relationship) after assessing threat perception, recognizing that the fundamental right to life and liberty must be protected regardless of marriage status. The court's order was made conditional on verification that petitioner No.2 is of majority age; if found to be minor, authorities may pursue action under the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 and POCSO Act, 2012. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case