← Library
High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRWP/163/2022dismissed

Kuldeep Singh Pangota v. State Of Punjab And ORS

2022-11-30Mr. Justice Harnaresh Singh Gill3 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 30.11.2022 KULDEEP SINGH PANGOTA

...Petitioner

Versus

STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARNARESH SINGH GILL

Present:

None for the petitioner.

Mr. Pankaj Khullar, AAG Punjab.

**** HARNARESH SINGH GILL, J.(Oral) There is no representation on behalf of the petitioner today. The present criminal writ petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution for issuance of directions to respondents No.1 to 3 to protect the life and liberty of the petitioner and his family members.

As per the contents of the petition, the petitioner belonged to the Cadre of Akali Dal and was appointed as a Senior Vice-Chairman of PUNSUP and prior to that, he was a Director of PUNSUP; that earlier, the petitioner was granted security cover during the assembly elections in 2017; that prior to the Assembly Elections, the petitioner joined the Congress Party; that vide CRM-M-30441-2018, the petitioner approached this Court, seeking protection to his life and liberty; that during pendency of the same, the Deputy Superintendent of Police (Investigation) Tarn Taran, recommended to the Senior Superintendent of

-2Police, Tarn Taran, to provide security to him; that the said petition was disposed of, vide order dated 21.11.2019 passed by a Coordinate Bench, with a direction to the police authority to look into the apprehension of the petitioner, verify the same and take appropriate action as required under the law, and that thereafter, the security cover provided to the petitioner remained as such till further orders, but the same had been withdrawn by respondent No.2 due to Covid-19. It is further averred that on 07.11.2021, some unidentified persons attacked the petitioner, following which FIR No.190 dated 07.11.2021, under Sections 307, 427 and 34 IPC and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959, was registered and that the petitioner is having a constant threat to his life and liberty and, therefore, a security cover be provided to him.

As per the status report dated 18.04.2022 filed on behalf of the respondent-State, the petitioner is neither a witness to any terrorist attack nor he and his family members were attacked by the terrorist and that vide letter dated 14.12.2021 of the District Magistrate, Tarn Taran, it has been recommended that armed licence of pistol 30 bore bearing No.A-364076 be issued to the petitioner. He further submits that as far as the attack on the petitioner on 07.11.2021 is concerned, FIR No.190 dated 07.11.2021 has already been registered in that regard. I have the learned State counsel and gone through the entire record.

-3As noticed above, the petitioner was/is neither a witness to any terrorist attack nor he and his family members were attacked by the terrorist, at any stage. Though, at one point of time, security cover was provided to the petitioner, yet the same was withdrawn later on. Regarding the attack on the petitioner on 07.11.2021, an FIR has already been registered in the concerned Police Station. Moreover, for the safety of the petitioner, it has been recommended by the District Magistrate, Tarn Taran, that armed licence of pistol 30 bore bearing No.A-364076 be issued to the petitioner. Above all, there is no representation on behalf of the petitioner today.

In view of the above, no further orders are required to be passed by this Court.

Dismissed.

30.11.2022 (HARNARESH SINGH GILL) Aman Jain JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes/No Whether reportable :

Yes/No