$~62 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(CRL) 1714/2025 & CRL.M.A. 16871/2025 CRL.M.A.

16878/2025 ADV PRABHAKAR NARAIN .....Petitioner Through: Petitioner in-person.

versus STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent Through: Kshitiz Garg, Advocate for Mr. Amol Sinha, ASC for the State.

Inspector Ajay Karan, SHO Farsh Bazar with ASI Satender.

Mr. T. Singhdev and Mr. Tanishq Srivastava, Advocates for R-4.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI

O R D E R

% 12.02.2026 The petitioner, who is a practising Advocate and appears in-

person submits, that his apprehension as expressed in the present proceedings continues; and that therefore, the police be directed to provide sufficient protection to enable him to appear in court and discharge his professional duties. The petitioner submits, that he has to appear in court tomorrow.

2. Mr. Kshitiz Garg, learned counsel appearing for Mr. Amol Sinha, learned ASC for the State submits, that vidé para 3 of order dated 27.11.2025, the petitioner was directed to inform the SHO, P.S.: Farsh Bazar, Delhi, 01 day in advance as to which court the petitioner wants to appear in; and the SHO would ensure adequate safety measures to avoid any untoward incident.

3. Mr. Garg submits, that the police would comply with the directions contained in the said order.

4. The petitioner further submits, that para 5 of order dated 21.05.2025 has not been complied with, by which the court has directed the SHO to preserve the CCTV footage of the incident in question; and to produce the same before the court. The petitioner also states, that the court had directed the police to carry-out a threat assessment in respect of the petitioner, which has still not been done.

5. On instructions, Mr. Garg submits, that the SHO had sent a written request to the concerned court, pursuant to which some of the CCTV footage has been made available to them and has been retrieved by the SHO and is available with him; but some of the CCTV footage was not made available by the concerned court.

6. Let a status report be filed detailing the footage that has been made available and that which has not been made available to the SHO, before the next date; with copy to the petitioner.

7. Mr. Garg has handed-up a copy of the Status Report dated

12.02.2026, submitting that the threat assessment has also been conducted; and Report dated 13.11.2025 has been received, which records that “there is no specific threat to the assessee”.

8. The status report is taken on record.

9. Furthermore, to ensure that the petitioner is not prevented from discharging his professional duties as an Advocate, Inspector Ajay Karan, P.S.: Farsh Bazar, Delhi, who is present in court, has stated that he would personally ensure that no threat is extended to the petitioner; and no harm comes to him in the course of his work at the Karkardooma Courts, New Delhi.

10. Lastly, the petitioner submits, that the present matter be clubbed with the matters concerning similar issues, that are pending before the Bench of Hon’ble the Chief Justice.

11. In this regard, the petitioner is at liberty to take appropriate steps for clubbing of the present matter with the other connected matters, subject to the orders of Hon’ble the Chief Justice.

12. For the above purpose, re-notify on 27^th February 2026.

ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI, J FEBRUARY 12, 2026 V.Rawat