IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : 07.07.2025 SARABJIT SINGH .....Petitioner VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB & OTHERS .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI Present : Mr. Vipul Joshi, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. Sahil R. Bakshi, AAG, Punjab.

KULDEEP TIWARI , J.(Oral)

1. Through the instant writ petition filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, a prayer is made for issuance of a direction upon the respondents to restore the security cover of the petitioner which was earlier provided in pursuance of the order passed by this Court in CRM-M-48038-2017, vide order dated 15.12.2017.

2. Earlier, the petitioner approached this Court by filing criminal miscellaneous petition (supra), seeking protection to his life and liberty, which was disposed of with a direction upon the Superintendent of Police, Patiala, to ensure that petitioner be not threatened or physically harmed.

3. The petitioner again approached this Court, by filing instant petition, seeking similar relief as the security provided to him, has been withdrawn. This Court while passing a specific order on dated

16.05.2025, directed the authority concerned to evaluate the threat perception to the petitioner, thereupon, to file a specific affidavit in this regard. The said order is extracted hereinafter:-

“Through the instant petition prayer is made for issuance of direction upon respondents to restore the security cover of the petitioner which was earlier granted to him in view of the direction passed by this court in CRM-M-No.48038 of 2017 on dated

15.12.2017.

Before this court issues notice of motion in this regard, let the authority concerned file a response after evaluating the threat perception, if already not evaluated, as to whether, the petitioner requires the security/protection or not.

Adjourned to 27.05.2025.”

4. Today, in deference to the direction (supra), a short reply dated 06.07.2025, by way of an affidavit of Sh.Manoj Gorsi, DSP, City-II, District Patiala, has been filed on behalf of respondents in Court, which is taken on record, with a copy thereof, supplied to learned counsel for the petitioner.

5. The Special Director of Police, Internal Security, Punjab, made a specific report on dated 29.05.2025, and it was subsequently, concluded that there is no threat perceptions to the petitioner. The relevant part of the affidavit (supra) is extracted hereinafter: “6. That the Special Director General of Police, Internal Security, Punjab, vide his report dated 29.05.2025, has reported that petitioner is an American Citizen. He often visits Patiala to take care his agricultural land. He is presently on visit to Patiala. He is having a property dispute with his brother Karam Singh, who is also a resident of America. He had submitted complaints against Karam Singh to local Police, which are under investigation. According to the field unit report and their office record, at present there is no specific threat input indicating ant threat to his security from any terrorist / militant / gangster outfits operating in the country. Moreover, he is permanent resident of America.

7. That Additional Director General of Police, Anti Gangster Task Force, Punjab, vide his report dated 29.05.2025, has reported that there is no specific technical/human intelligence available with AGTF as on date.

8. That in view of the above-mentioned facts and circumstances, and guidelines laid down under Standing Operating Procedure (SOP) and State Security Policy-2013, personal security cover to the petitioner by the State of Punjab on state expenses is not warranted. However, PCR vehicles have been deployed for patrolling near the house of petitioner to ensure his safety to avoid any untoward incident.”

6. In view of the above specific stand taken by learned State counsel and specifically, when this Court does not find any cogent material to substantiate the apprehension of threat as raised by the present petitioner, the asked for mandamus