COCP No. 2163 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH COCP 2163 of 2008 Date of decision: February 11, 2009 Nand Kishore …..PETITIONER Versus Krishna Mohan, Secretary to Govt. of Haryana and others …..RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE T.P.S.MANN PRESENT: Mr Upender Prasher, Advocate for Mr K.S.Dadwal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr S.S.Patter, Sr Deputy Advocate General, Haryana for the respondents. T.P.S.MANN, J. (Oral): On May 16, 2008 while disposing of Criminal Misc. No. M- 6376 of 2008 filed by the petitioner, this Court directed the State to ensure proper security of the petitioner's son, namely, Kaushal during his transit from District Jail, Sonepat to Judicial Court, Gurgaon till the disposal of the trial. According to the petitioner, though the respondents have given assurance to the Court that proper and adequate security was being provided, yet the assurance had not been honoured because no proper security or escort was being given, rather, at times, the son of the petitioner was being taken in the Bus or in some other vehicle. While taking the petitioner's son to Gurgaon, the police officials either sit at the Dhaba or they leave for purchasing cigarettes. They also smoke in the way after stopping the son of the petitioner and therefore, the danger to the life of the petitioner's son has increased. COCP No. 2163 of 2008 2 Separate replies have been filed by respondent Nos. 1 and 2. In his reply, respondent No.1 has stated that the petitioner has levelled false, vague and wild allegations regarding the conduct of the police officials, who had been taking his son to Gurgaon Courts. In fact, the son of the petitioner has always been taken on each and every date of the trial with effect from 23.5.2008 up to 15.1.2009 in Prison Van. The various dates on which the petitioner's son has been taken in Prison Van have been mentioned in para-4 of the reply. It has also been mentioned therein that the officials deputed for security are also provided arms and ammunition for the protection and security of son of the petitioner. In his reply, respondent No.2 has stated that the Officer Incharge of the Police Escort is responsible for safe custody of the Prisoner from the time of delivery of Prisoner until his return to the Prison and the Police Department had taken adequate measures in the past to ensure safety and security of the Prisoner. In view of the above, it cannot be said that Kaushal, son of the petitioner has not been provided proper security during his transit from District Jail, Sonepat to the Judicial Courts at Gurgaon. The petition is, accordingly, disposed of, but with a direction to the respondents to ensure that every time when the son of the petitioner has to be taken to the Courts from the Jail, he shall be taken in Prison Van only and not by any other mode of transport. Rule is discharged. February 11, 2009 (T.P.S.MANN) Pds. JUDGE