Crl. Misc. No. M-16105 of 2011 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-16105 of 2011 (O&M) Decided on : 08-09-2011 Jaswinder Singh alias Rocky ....Petitioner VERSUS State of Punjab and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER Present:- Mr. Mansur Ali, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. B.B.S.Teji, Sr. DAG, Punjab Ms. Anju Arora, Advocate for respondent no.5 MAHESH GROVER, J This is a petition where the petitioner prays that adequate permission be granted to him in view of the threat that he apprehends at the hands of respondent no.5 who is acting in collusion with the police. Reply has been filed by the State of Punjab in which it has been stated that petitioner himself is involved in criminal activities and is facing number of FIRs, the details of which have been given in para 3 of the reply which are extracted herebelow:- Sr no Case FIR No. & Date Offence Name of Police Station Present status of the case 1 23/27.4.1994 326,324,323 IPC City Fazilka Acquitted 13.2.2004 2 44/7.8.1994 323, 324, 34 IPC City Fazilka Acquitted 27.l.1999 3 27/ 3.3.2007 307, 323 IPC 25/27/54/59 Arms Act City Fazilka Acquitted 8.3.2010 4 44/ 25.4.2008 307,324, 323, 148,149 IPC 25, 27, 54, 59 Arms Act City Fazilka Acquitted 13.4.2010 Crl. Misc. No. M-16105 of 2011 (O&M) 2 Sr no Case FIR No. & Date Offence Name of Police Station Present status of the case 5 244/25.7.2008 302 IPC City Abohar Acquitted 29.11.2010 6 40/30.3.2007 25,27, 54, 59 Arms Act City Fazilka Under trial 7 107/7.7.2006 302, 307, 120 B IPC 25, 27, 54, 59 Arms Act Sec. 3 North CHG Under trial 8 229/27.7.2008 25, 54, 59 Arms Act Sec. 11, CHG Under trial 9 215/12.10.2010 384, 506, 511, 120-B IPC City Abohar Under investigation The threat perception has been viewed by police authorities and they have recommended that the petitioner need not be given any security. On due consideration of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that questions such as these are best left to the police authorities who are competent enough to take a decision by evaluating threat perception to a person. The Court cannot substitute its opinion. Hence, dismissed. However, if at any point of time, the respondents feel that the petitioner actually faces some threat, then the earlier decision should not be construed to be an impediment in taking a fresh decision in this regard as it is always the duty of the State machinery to protect the life and liberty of an individual, if so threatened. September 8, 2011 (Mahesh Grover) rekha Judge