IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRWP-2241-2026 (O&M)

Decided on: 26.02.2026 VIJENDER SINGH .....Petitioner Versus STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHAS MEHLA Present: Mr. Gagandeep Rana, Advocate and Mr. Anmol Singh Virk, Advocate for the petitioner(s).

Mr. Karan Veer Singh, Sr. DAG, Haryana.

****

SUBHAS MEHLA, J. (Oral)

1. The present petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the official respondent(s) to provide adequate security to the petitioner for the protection of his life and liberty from the accused in FIR no. 15 dated 20.01.2025 registered under sections 109 (1), 333, 61, 3(5), 238 of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 and under Section 25/27 of the Arms Act, 1959, Police Station Rai, District Sonipat (Annexure P-2) and further for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondent no. 3 to decide the representation dated 20.02.2026 (Annexure P-8) by passing a speaking order and take appropriate steps thereupon to protect the life and liberty of the petitioner. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is a real and imminent danger to life of the petitioner at the hands of one Inderjeet @ Bantu and Chanderjeet. In this regard, he was granted police protection, however, the same was withdrawn without assigning any reason. After the withdrawal of the security, two armed shooters Vikram @ Vicky and Sachin came to his office and fired gunshot at him, however the petitioner was luckily saved. Before leaving, the shooters said that they have been sent by Inderjeet @ Bantu and Chanderjeet and further threatened the petitioner that he should settle the civil dispute or he will be killed. Regarding the incident FIR No.15 dated 20.01.2025 under Sections 109, 333, 61, 3(5) & 238 of BNS and Sections 25 & 27 of the Arms Act has been lodged. Thereafter, threat assessment was conducted and 01 gunman was also deputed, but he was withdrawn on 02.02.2026 without giving any reason. Representation dated 20.02.2026 regarding the same has also been submitted to Commissioner of Police, Sonipat. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the petitioner has filed an application before the trial Court that Chanderjeet @

Chantoo should be summoned as an accused.

3. In pursuance of advance notice, Mr. Karan Veer Singh, Sr. DAG, Haryana has put in appearance on behalf of respondent-State and submitted that the petitioner may approach the concerned authority dealing with Haryana Witness Protection Scheme, 2025 (formulated in conformity with guidelines laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mahendra Chawla Vs. UOI, (2019) 14 SCC 615) which provides comprehensive security to witnesses in serious criminal cases.

4. Heard.

5. On this, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks to withdraw the present petition with liberty to approach and to move an application before the concerned authority/ Committee dealing with Haryana Witness Protection Scheme, 2025.

6. Permitted to do so.

7. Accordingly, the present petition is disposed of, as withdrawn. However, it is directed that in case the petitioner moves an application before the aforesaid Committee/ authority, the concerned Committee/ authority shall take necessary steps on the application/

representation so filed, expeditiously.

(SUBHAS MEHLA)

JUDGE

26.02.2026 Sonia Puri