JEETU AND ANOTHER vs UT OF CHANDIGARH AND OTHERS — CRWP/5640/2026

Disposed: --DISPOSED OF on 13th May 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: PHHC010824062026

Filing Number

CRWP/38585/2026

Filing Date

13-May-2026

Registration No

CRWP/5640/2026

Registration Date

13-May-2026

Judge

Mrs. Justice Manisha Batra

Coram

Mrs. Justice Manisha Batra

Category

47.5 - PROTECTION ( 195 )

Judicial Branch

CRIMINAL BRANCH

Decision Date

13-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

--DISPOSED OF

Last updated 01-Jun-2026

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.JEETU AND ANOTHER

    Adv. SARVESH KUMAR GUPTA

  2. 2.JEETU

  3. 3.SSP CHANDIGARH

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.UT OF CHANDIGARH AND OTHERS

  2. 2.JEETU

  3. 3.SSP CHANDIGARH

  4. 4.SHO (Station House Officer) MAULI JAGRAN

  5. 5.MATHURA PARASHAD YADAV

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 13-May-2026

    Mrs. Justice Manisha BatraView PDF

    Case Summary: CRWP-5640-2026 Court Decision: The High Court of Punjab & Haryana disposed of the petition with a direction to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Chandigarh to decide the petitioners' representation (dated 12.05.2026) within 15 days by passing a reasoned order in accordance with law. The court also mandated that if any threat to the petitioners is found, official respondents must provide adequate security to protect their life and liberty. Key Reasoning: The petitioners sought mandamus directing protection of their life and liberty and action on their representation. The court accepted the limited prayer and, without commenting on case merits, directed timely disposal of the representation with appropriate safeguards if threats exist. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 13-May-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. CRWP/5640/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: CRWP-5640-2026 Court Decision: The High Court of Punjab & Haryana disposed of the petition with a direction to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Chandigarh to decide the petitioners' representation (dated 12.05.2026) within 15 days by passing a reasoned order in accordance with law. The court also mandated that if any threat to the petitioners is found, official respondents must provide adequate security to protect their life and liberty. Key Reasoning: The petitioners sought mandamus directing protection of their life and liberty and action on their representation. The court accepted the limited prayer and, without commenting on case merits, directed timely disposal of the representation with appropriate safeguards if threats exist. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case