SANDEEP SINGH versus STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

---

Sandeep Singh v. State of Punjab & Ors. - CRM-23262-M-2006 [2006] RD-P&H 10534 (14 November 2006)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

Crl. Misc. No.23262-M of 2006

DATE OF DECISION:20.11.2006

Sandeep Singh ..........Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab & Ors. ..........Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL
Present:- Shri Sumeet Mahajan, Advocate

for the petitioner.

Shri N.S. Gill, AAG, Punjab.

****

The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

making two fold prayers; firstly that the petitioner may not be harrased by the local police on one pretext or other and secondly for providing protection to him, as he is having threat to his life and liberty.

Pursuant to the notice issued, reply on behalf of respondent- State has been filed. In the reply, it has been stated that petitioner is not being harassed by any police official. In para 30 of the reply, it has been specifically stated that the petitioner is not required in any case by the District Police, Ludhiana, and in case he alleges any threats from any police official, he can make complaint to the SSP. If any such complaint is filed, the same will be looked into. Regarding security, it has been stated that earlier the petitioner had filed a petition bearing Crl. Misc. No. 8231-M of 2003, which was disposed of by this Court vide order order dated 25.2.2003 directing the SSP to examine the allegation of threat to the petitioner and to provide adequate security to him on reasonable terms and expenses to be borne by the petitioner. It has further been stated that the petitioner never approached to the concerned authorities for providing any security. Counsel for the respondent-State states that the still the police will consider the request of the petitioner for providing security on payment, if any such application is filed showing such perception to the authorities, in view of the order dated 25.2.2003.

In view of the above factual position, no further direction is required to be issued in this case.

Dismissed.

November 20, 2006 (SATISH KUMAR MITTAL)

pooja JUDGE

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.