Crl. Misc. No. M-23959 of 2010 (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-23959 of 2010 DATE OF DECISION: 23.09.2010 Sahab Singh ..........Petitioner Versus State of Haryana & Ors. ..........Respondents BEFORE:- HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY Present:- Mr. N.K. Sanghi, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. S.S. Mor, Sr. DAG, Haryana. **** DAYA CHAUDHARY, J. The present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by petitioner-Sahab Singh for issuing directions to the respondents to protect him and his family members life and liberty as they are receiving continuous threats. Notice of motion was issued in this case on 20.8.2010. In response thereto, written statement on behalf of respondents No.1 to 3 has been filed, which is on record. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that earlier after conducting inquiry, as per directions given by this Court on 12.3.2010 in Crl. Misc. No. M-7528 of 2010, the petitioner was provided security but subsequently on the basis of report of SHO, Police Station City Kaithal, it was withdrawn. Learned counsel for the respondent-State submits that in view Crl. Misc. No. M-23959 of 2010 (2) of the threat perception, the petitioner was provided two armed personnel as there were indications that one Balwant Singh S/o Mani Ram was instrumental in the murderous attack on him in firing incident dated 13.9.2009. On receipt of the report of SHO Police Station City Kaithal that there is no threat to the life of the petitioner, security provided to him was withdrawn vide order dated 20.7.2010. It has also been mentioned in the reply that in case FIR No. 580 dated 13.9.2009 registered under Sections 307/120-B/34 IPC and 25/54/59 of Arms Act, all the accused except Sunil Rana who was declared Proclaimed Offender, have been arrested. As per investigation, Sunil Rana was merely an accomplice of accused Balwant Singh and is not having any personal enmity with the petitioner and all efforts are now being made to arrest accused- Sunil Rana. It has also been pointed out by counsel for the respondent-State that no such representation or complaint with regard to any threat further given to the petitioner or his family members has been made by the petitioner to the police authorities and has also not placed any such representation on record. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner met the police authorities on various occasions and requested to provide security in view of the constant threats given to him on various occasions. The petitioner is still being threatened by the accused persons and is having danger to his life and liberty and the security has wrongly been withdrawn without taking into consideration all these factors I have heard the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record available on file. Admittedly, earlier the petitioner was provided security as there was threat perception at that time but subsequently on receipt of the report of SHO, Police Station City Kaithal that now no threat perception was there, security was withdrawn. Although an argument has been raised by Crl. Misc. No. M-23959 of 2010 (3) the learned counsel for the petitioner that constant threats are being given to the petitioner but nothing has been placed on record to show that any representation or complaint was ever made to the police authorities. Neither such representation is on the file nor in the police record. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is having constant threats to his life and liberty and it has also been brought to the knowledge of police authorities verbally but it was not in writing. The petitioner is ready to make a detailed representation also in this regard to the police authorities. Learned counsel for the respondent-State submits that if any such representation is made by the petitioner by giving detailed facts with regard to threat, the same would be considered by the police authorities. In view of the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, this petition is disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to make representation to the authorities concerned within a period of one week from the date of receipt of copy of the order and if any representation is made, Inspector General, Ambala Range, Ambala is directed to decide the same within a period of one week thereafter by passing a speaking order. September 23, 2010 (DAYA CHAUDHARY) pooja JUDGE Note:-Whether this case is to be referred to the Reporter .......Yes/No