Nand Kishore vs Krishna Mohan on 11 February, 2009

COCP No. 2163 of 2008                                    1

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                        CHANDIGARH
                                                         COCP 2163 of 2008
                                         Date of decision: February 11, 2009

Nand Kishore
                                                             .....PETITIONER
                                   Versus

Krishna Mohan, Secretary to Govt. of Haryana and others

                                                         .....RESPONDENTS

CORAM:       HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T.P.S.MANN

PRESENT: Mr Upender Prasher, Advocate for
         Mr K.S.Dadwal, Advocate
         for the petitioner.

Mr S.S.Patter, Sr Deputy Advocate General, Haryana
for the respondents.

T.P.S.MANN, J. (Oral):

On May 16, 2008 while disposing of Criminal Misc. No. M-

6376 of 2008 filed by the petitioner, this Court directed the State to ensure

proper security of the petitioner’s son, namely, Kaushal during his transit

from District Jail, Sonepat to Judicial Court, Gurgaon till the disposal of the

trial.

According to the petitioner, though the respondents have given

assurance to the Court that proper and adequate security was being

provided, yet the assurance had not been honoured because no proper

security or escort was being given, rather, at times, the son of the petitioner

was being taken in the Bus or in some other vehicle. While taking the

petitioner’s son to Gurgaon, the police officials either sit at the Dhaba or

they leave for purchasing cigarettes. They also smoke in the way after

stopping the son of the petitioner and therefore, the danger to the life of the

petitioner’s son has increased.

COCP No. 2163 of 2008 2

Separate replies have been filed by respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

In his reply, respondent No.1 has stated that the petitioner has levelled false,

vague and wild allegations regarding the conduct of the police officials,

who had been taking his son to Gurgaon Courts. In fact, the son of the

petitioner has always been taken on each and every date of the trial with

effect from 23.5.2008 up to 15.1.2009 in Prison Van. The various dates on

which the petitioner’s son has been taken in Prison Van have been

mentioned in para-4 of the reply. It has also been mentioned therein that the

officials deputed for security are also provided arms and ammunition for the

protection and security of son of the petitioner.

In his reply, respondent No.2 has stated that the Officer

Incharge of the Police Escort is responsible for safe custody of the Prisoner

from the time of delivery of Prisoner until his return to the Prison and the

Police Department had taken adequate measures in the past to ensure safety

and security of the Prisoner.

In view of the above, it cannot be said that Kaushal, son of the

petitioner has not been provided proper security during his transit from

District Jail, Sonepat to the Judicial Courts at Gurgaon.

The petition is, accordingly, disposed of, but with a direction to

the respondents to ensure that every time when the son of the petitioner has

to be taken to the Courts from the Jail, he shall be taken in Prison Van only

and not by any other mode of transport. Rule is discharged.

February 11, 2009                                   (T.P.S.MANN)
Pds.                                                  JUDGE