IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. M. No.20790-M of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision:26.4.2010 B.B. Ahuja .... Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .... Respondent CORAM: Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur Present: Mr. Pritam Saini, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Kshitij Sharma, A.A.G. Haryana. Mr. V.K. Jindal, Advocate for respondents No.5 and 7. Mr. A.P.S. Mann, Advocate for respondent No.6. **** 1.Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2.To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? NIRMALJIT KAUR, J. The only prayer made in the present petition is for issuance of direction to the official respondents No.1 to 4 for protecting the life and liberty of the petitioner and directing the official respondents No.1 to 4 to comply with the earlier order passed by this Court in Crl. M. NO.16631-M of 2009 in its true essence. Reply has been filed by Srikant Jadhav IPS, Senior Superintendent of Police, Panipat, on behalf of respondents No.1 to 4. In para 1 of the reply on merits, it is stated that as and when the petitioner was apprehending any danger or threat, Police protection was provided to him as per his requirement. Learned State counsel on instructions on instructions from ASI Satnaryan further states that the petitioner is residing in Mohali not in Haryana. Hence, presently the security has not been provided. In response, Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the stand of the Crl. M. No.20790-M of 2009 (O&M) -2- respondent-State is wrong and incorrect. The petitioner is stated to be residing at Panchkula on the following address: H. No.875, Sector 21, Panchkula. He is residing at the aforesaid address on account of the fact the threats received by him at the hands of private respondents. It is further stated that on account of the said threats, he is not able to reside at Panipat. In view of the above, respondents No.1 to 4 are directed to look into the grievance of the petitioner as already directed vide order dated 31.7.2009 and provide necessary protection, if need be. Learned counsel for the petitioner at this stage has submitted that the accused have not been arrested till date. Accordingly, the petitioner is at liberty to make fresh representation to the concerned Superintendent of Police, who shall look into the same and take appropriate action in accordance with law. Disposed of accordingly. 26.4.2010 ( NIRMALJIT KAUR ) rajeev JUDGE