An individual cannot claim indefinite police protection as a right; protection must be provided based on current threat assessments.

Order

20/05/2025

1. By way of filing the present criminal writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:-

“It is, therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that:-

(i) The action of the respondents while revoking the protection of the petitioner may kindly be declared bad in the eye of law.

(ii) The respondents police authorities may kindly be directed to continue providing the appropriate protection the petitioner to protect their life and liberty.

(iii) The respondents may kindly be directed to issue arms license and permission to use bullet proof vehicle to the petitioner looking to the threat to the life of the petitioner. (iv) Any other order or direction which this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner.”

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that on 27.03.2023, the petitioner was threatened by gang members of Anmol Bishnoi Gang on mobile phone wherein the said members asked the petitioner not to act against the interests of Anmol Bishnoi Gang otherwise, he would face dire consequences. The matter was reported by the petitioner to the police and the police authorities after assessing the threat perception to the petitioner, provided him with police protection. Learned counsel submitted that despite the fact that the threat perception of the petitioner still persists, the respondent police officials have withdrawn the police protection in the month of April, 2025 without rhyme or reason. It was thus, prayed that appropriate directions may be issued to the respondents to provide police protection to petitioner owing to alleged threat to his life and property by certain miscreants/unknown persons.

3. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that in the present case, the police protection provided to the petitioner was withdrawn after assessing the threat perception to the petitioner. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the investigation in relation to mobile call received by the petitioner on 27.03.2023 has already been completed. Further, few persons who were allegedly conducted recce of the petitioner have been arrested and presently they are in the police custody. It was submitted that the police department has assessed/re-assessed the threat perception of individuals, who are provided with police protection and it has been decided to provide protection by deploying PSO etc., only when necessary. In the present case, the police authorities on assessing/re-assessing the threat perception to the petitioner have reached to a definite conclusion that continuous protection to the petitioner by providing PSO/police guard is not necessary and consequently, a conscious decision was taken to withdraw the police protection. Learned counsel submitted that the police officials in order to ensure that no physical harm is caused to the petitioner have directed the concerned police station to keep a constant vigilance over the activities near the house of the petitioner. The PCR (Public Call Response) van has also been instructed to take regular rounds outside the petitioner’s house. On these grounds, learned Public Prosecutor implored the Court to dismiss the present criminal writ petition.

4. Heard submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties at bar. Perused the material available on record.

5. The factual report dated 19.05.2025 received by the learned Public Prosecutor from the office of SHO, P.S. Sadar, Sri Ganganagar is produced before this Court and the same is taken on record. The factual report indicates that the petitioner is involved in criminal activities and as many as eleven cas