The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of continued protection for witnesses, especially in cases involving high-profile individuals or police officials.

Ranjit Singh, J.

1. Kirpal Singh Randhawa, an important witness in the case of abduction and disappearance of Jaswant Singh Khalra, Human Rights Activist, seeks directions for his proper security, which, according to him, is being thinned despite the directions of the Honble Supreme Court. Jaswant Singh Khalra, was allegedly murdered brutally by group of nine police officials, including the then SSP, Tarn Taran, leading to registration of an FIR No. 14(S)/ 95/Delhi under Sections 120-B, 364, 302, 201 read with Section 34 IPC. This FIR had been registered under the directions of the Honble Supreme Court and was investigated by the CBI, which had presented this challan. The petitioner, who admittedly is an eye-witness in the murder case of Jaswant Singh Khalra, fears that his security is endangered in view of the withdrawal of Escort Gypsy earlier provided to him under the directions of the Honble Supreme Court, which has resulted in his security guard being ineffective in travelling with him, while he is required to go on some social or other such commitments. The perusal of the petition would reveal that the petitioner has given an eye-witness account in the case of abovenoted murder trial leading to conviction of different police officials for an offence under Sections 302/201.364/120-B/34 IPC. Having regard to the involvement of police officials and the importance of this case, the Honble Supreme Court vide its order dated 15.3.1996 had given directions for providing full protection to all the witnesses, who were assisting the CBI in investigating this murder case known as `Khalra murder case. The order in this regard has been annexed as Annexure P-1 with this petition and the relevant portion thereof reads as under:-

"We direct the Home Secretary and the Director General of Police, State of Punjab, to give full protection to all the witnesses who are assisting the CBI in this investigation as and when any of the witnesses ask for police protection (independent) the same be provided to them."

It may also need a notice that having regard to sensitive nature of the case and the influence that the police officials may have been able to exercise, the directions were issued by the Honble Supreme Court to transfer all the police officials out of district Amritsar. So much so that Shri Ajit Singh Sandhu, SSP, Tarn Taran was not permitted to retain accommodation at Taran Taran, though he had been transferred from the district under the orders of the Honble Supreme Court. On request made by DSP K.S. Joshi, Investigating Officer, CBI, Jaspal Singh, DSP, Tarn Taran and Surinder Pal Singh, SHO, Police Station, Sarhali were directed to be transferred from the District with the further directions that they shall not be posted either in the Districts of Amritsar or Tarn Taran or the adjoining Districts. Complying with the directions of the Honble Supreme Court, the petitioner was provided six gunmen, three from CISF and three from Punjab Police, who have remained with him for providing protection to his life and liberty. He was also provided Escort Gypsy alongwith 150 litres of petrol per month for his day-to-day pursuits. It is in this background that the present petitioner was able to assist the administration of justice by appearing as a witness and giving the eye-witness account. It is now complained by the petitioner that a few days before filing of the petition, the Gypsy provided to him has been withdrawn under the orders of Additional Director General of Police, Security Wing, Punjab (respondent No. 4). The reasons advanced in this regard are that State is facing acute shortage of vehicles for VIP duties and hence Gypsy/Car for security provided to the petitioner is taken back. Terming this to be an excuse, the petitioner has complained that this is aimed at tactics to lax the security provided to the petitioner and somehow to deter him. The petitioner has also made reference to certain previous instances of this nature, wh