Neelam v. Union Of India & ORS

$~17 *

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ W.P.(CRL) 2214/2015 NEELAM ..... Petitioner Through:

Mr.R.N.Sharma and Mr.Ajay Satija, Advocates.

versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS ..... Respondents Through:

Mr.Dev P.Bhardwaj, CGSC for respondent No.1.

Mr.Rahul Mehra, Standing Counsel (Crl.) with Mr.Jamal Akhtar, Advocate.

Insp.Raj Kumar, SI Jag Mohan, P.S.B.H.D.Nagar.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR

O R D E R

% 10.12.2015 Smt.Neelam, the petitioner, has prayed for a direction to the respondent authorities for providing her adequate security cover for the safety of her life and property.

It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that in the past, on several occasions attempts on life of her husband and other relatives were made including one ex MLA who was killed in a daring act of murder in daylight when he had gone to attend some social function. The status report takes note of the fact that there have been several instances when the husband of the petitioner and her other relatives have

been attacked by miscreants. The status report lists the number of persons who have been arrested in connection with cases concerning the petitioner and her other relatives including the slain ex MLA, namely, Bharat Singh. Mr.R.K.Sharma, learned advocate for the petitioner, has submitted that only two days before, one of the prime witnesses in the case of murder of later Bharat Singh has been killed.

Mr.Mehra, Standing Counsel, however, has submitted that Ombir, one of the prime witnesses in the case and who is distantly related to the petitioner, has been provided security cover. Mr.Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that such security cover is absolutely inadequate as two constables have been deputed only from 10 am to 5 pm. The chances of attack on such witnesses or others are more in the stealth of the night. The status report further reveals that the husband of the petitioner was an accused in around 26 cases but in all such cases, except one, he has been acquitted. This fact also strengthens the case of the petitioner regarding the desirability of her being provided security cover.

The fact that the husband of the petitioner had rubbed some of the persons on the wrong side is a good reason for suspecting reprisal at their hands. The petitioner is a sitting councillor. Considering the aforesaid aspect and the background of the petitioner as also her present calling where she is required to interact in public, the Commissioner of Police (respondent No.3) is directed to provide adequate security cover to the petitioner, Smt.Neelam and the prime witnesses of the case relating to the murder of Bharat Singh, ex MLA within a period of 15 days.

The SHO of the concerned police station of the area in which the

residence of the petitioner falls, is in the meantime directed to take appropriate measures to ensure the safety of the petitioner. The petition is disposed of.

ASHUTOSH KUMAR, J DECEMBER 10, 2015 k