Vikrant Singla v. State Of Haryana & ANR

VINOD KUMAR 2016.04.12 11:50 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh CWP No.2358 of 2015 [ 1 ] *****

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH CWP No.2358 of 2015 Date of decision:07.04.2016 Vikrant Singla

...Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana and others

...Respondents

CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain

Present:

Mr. John Kumar, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. P.P.Chahar, DAG, Haryana.

***** Rakesh Kumar Jain, J.

The petitioner has prayed for a writ in the nature of mandamus, directing the respondents to ensure his protection by providing adequate security.

The petitioner has alleged that he is a social activist; worker of the Bhartiya Janta Party; appointed as National Executive Member of Trade Cell and is also the President of the Agroha Vikas Trust (Agroha Dham). He has alleged that because of his participation in the agitation for social cause, he has been receiving threats to his life and liberty for which he had represented to the Government but despite recommendation, no adequate security has been provided. He has also mentioned in the petition that he has been threatened by one H.K.Goyal on his mobile for which he had given an application to the SHO, Police Station City Ballabgarh but so far no

VINOD KUMAR 2016.04.12 11:50 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh CWP No.2358 of 2015 [ 2 ] ***** security has been provided.

In the reply filed by respondent No.4, it is averred that though initially, there was recommendation made by the local police to provide protection and security but after considering all facts and circumstances and verification, it has been found that there was no such threat to the life and liberty of the petitioner. It is also averred that the petitioner has alleged threat from H.K.Goyal but after investigation, it has been found that the said person had demanded `4 lacs from the petitioner, which he had borrowed from him.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and examining the available record, I am of the considered opinion that the threat perception of the petitioner is totally misplaced as it has been found after verification that it is the petitioner who had borrowed `4 lacs from H.K.Goyal, which he had demanded on his telephone. The petitioner has, thus, tried to make a mountain out of a molehill.

Consequently, I do not find any merit in the present petition and hence, the same is hereby dismissed.

April 07, 2016 (Rakesh Kumar Jain) vinod* Judge