20-05-2025
Punjab and Haryana HC junks ‘frivolous' security plea, forfeits petitioner's Rs 2-lakh deposit
Dismissing a security petition filed by a social worker from Jalandhar, who claimed threats to his life and family from anti-social elements, the Punjab and Haryana High Court ordered the forfeiture of the Rs 2-lakh deposit made by the petitioner.
A bench of Justice Harpreet Singh Brar, who heard the matter, found no credible evidence to support the allegations made by the petitioner.
The Jalandhar-based man had moved the court under Article 226 of the Constitution, citing threats through overseas calls, suspicious individuals videographing his temple and business premises, and an alleged link to a grenade attack on a former Cabinet minister's house. He also submitted CCTV camera footage and complaints in support of his plea.
The court, however, noted that 'not only did the petitioner refuse to join the inquiry, he also refused to provide the CCTV footage,' and highlighted his demand for transferring the investigation as casting further doubt on his intentions.
An inquiry led by IPS officer Akarshi Jain, Additional Deputy Commissioner of Police-I, Jalandhar, found that the individuals filming the area were participating in the Cleanliness Survey-2024 under the Swachh Bharat Mission. The vehicle allegedly involved in the act was owned by a man named Akasdeep and had been used by his brother and another individual to inquire about a paying guest, not to intimidate the petitioner. As for the grenade incident, the court said there was 'nothing connecting the same to the persons allegedly roaming around the premises of the petitioner'.
This was not the petitioner's first attempt to seek police protection. A previous petition had been withdrawn on May 14, 2024, following multiple status reports, including one which concluded that 'no evidence of any threat has come to light regarding the application given by the applicant with regard to provision of security.'
The court expressed concern over the repeated misuse of law enforcement, observing that such attempts drained resources meant for genuine cases. 'Repeatedly engaging State resources to inquire into imaginary threats, merely to use police protection as a status symbol and inflate one's ego, is not just wasteful but also deeply troubling,' the order stated.
Expressing strong disapproval, Justice Brar added, 'The petitioner instigated an entire inquiry but refused to participate in it. Such conduct causes great vexation not only to this Court, which already has significant pendency, but also to the police personnel engaged specifically for this purpose.'
The petition was dismissed, and the Rs 2 lakh deposit was forfeited to the District Legal Services Authority, Jalandhar, as a consequence of what the court deemed a frivolous plea.
