High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCWP/27207/2017dismissed

Azad Mohammad v. State Of Haryana And ORS.

2017-11-30Mr. Justice R.P. Nagrath2 pages

Vinod Kumar 2017.12.08 12:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.27207 of 2017 [ 1 ] *****

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH CWP No.27207 of 2017 Date of decision:30.11.2017 Azad Mohammad

...Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana and others

...Respondents

Coram:

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain

Present:

Mr. Mohammad Arshad, Advocate, for the petitioner.

***** Rakesh Kumar Jain, J.

The petitioner, who happened to be a former Minister of the State of Haryana, has prayed for a direction to respondents no.2 to 5 to provide adequate security to him. It is averred in the petition that the petitioner had a threat perception from some gangster in the year 1997. It is also averred that respondent no.6 had attacked upon the petitioner in the year 2016, for which he got registered FIR No.481 dated 14.09.2016.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and examined the available record.

Firstly, though the petitioner has referred to various FIRs starting from Annexures P-1 and Annexures P-7 to P-14 but no details thereof have been given by him in the writ petition except for attaching the first page of the said FIRs. Secondly, all allegations have been made in respect of some gangster pertaining to the incident of 1997, without giving any kind of detail of any threat by him thereafter. As a matter of fact, the writ petition is not having

CWP No.27207 of 2017 [ 2 ] ***** necessary details on the basis of which this Court could perceive the threat perception to the petitioner for consideration of the prayer made by him. Moreover, the alleged incident of threat by some gangster is 20 years old and the FIR of 2016 is also not made part of the petition nor any further details have been given as to what had happened after registration of the FIR. Consequently, I do not find any reason to interfere in the present petition and hence, the same is hereby dismissed being denuded of any merit, though without any order as to costs.

November 30, 2017 (Rakesh Kumar Jain) vinod* Judge Whether speaking / reasoned:

Yes/No Whether Reportable:

Yes/No