Sh. Dinesh Kumar v. The State & ORS.

$~8 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(CRL) 1269/2020 SH. DINESH KUMAR ..... Petitioner Through:

Mr Kirti Uppal, Sr. Advocate along with Mr Vivek Sharma, Advocate.

versus THE STATE & ORS.

..... Respondents Through:

Tanuj Badhana, Advocate for Mr Avi Singh, ASC for State.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

O R D E R

% 20.08.2020 [Hearing held through video conferencing] CRL.M.A. 11216/2020 1.

Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

W.P.(CRL) 1269/2020 2.

The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, praying as under:- "a) to the respondents No.2 to 5 to increase the number of police officials (presently one police official has been appointed) to protect the life of the petitioner and provide the security to the family of the petitioner; b) to take appropriate action against Gajender Bhati and his accomplice."

3.

The petitioner had filed a PIL (W.P.(C) 2365/2016) with regard to unauthorized encroachment and construction on public land in the area of Jyoti Nagar (East and West), Loni Road, Shahdara, Delhi-110032. The petitioner alleges that the said land had been encroached by certain criminal elements. Certain directions were passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the said PIL and East Delhi Municipal Corporation has thereafter, undertaken a drive to remove encroachment on public land. The petitioner submits that the criminal elements, that had encroached upon the land, have been giving multiple threats to the petitioner. 4.

Mr Uppal, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to an undated threatening letter annexed as Annexure P-7 to this petition, whereby the petitioner has been warned not to go to court and a veiled threat has been issued to him and his family members.

5.

The petitioner had approached the Division Bench of this Court for seeking protection and by an order dated 09.05.2017 passed in W.P.(C) 1085/2017 captioned 'Dinesh Kumar v. The Commissioner, East Delhi Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors.', the Division Bench of this Court had directed DCP (District North Zone) to provide protection to the petitioner, if approached for the same.

6.

This Court is informed that pursuant to the said order, a police official has been deputed to protect the petitioner. Mr Uppal, further states that additional security is required as his family members are also under threat. 7.

Mr Badhana, learned counsel appearing for the respondent states that the telephone numbers of the police officials and beat staff have been provided to the petitioner in order to enable him and his family to contact

them in case of any eventuality.

8.

The respondents are directed to ensure that the concerned beat staff visit the petitioner's residence at regular intervals. The concerned SHO shall also evaluate the threat perception and if he considers necessary, he may enhance the security provided to the petitioner and his family members. 9.

No further orders are required to be passed in this petition. The same is disposed of.

VIBHU BAKHRU, J AUGUST 20, 2020 MK