Liyaqat Ali vs Nct Of Delhi & Ors
2015 Latest Caselaw 7729 Del

#13
         IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                                 Date of decision: 08.10.2015

W.P.(CRL) 553/2015

LIYAQAT ALI                                          ..... Petitioner
                           Through:     Mr. Kamran Malik, Advocate with
                                        Mr. Mobin Ullah, Advocate

                           versus


NCT OF DELHI & ORS                                  ..... Respondents

Through: Mr. Rajesh Mahajan, ASC (Criminal) with SI Chandan Kumar, PS- Jamia Nagar, Delhi for R-1 & R-2 Mr. K.K. Manan, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Ankush Narang, Advocate for R-3 & R-4

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL

SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J (ORAL)

CRL.M.A. Nos.4041/2015 & 4042/2015 (Exemption)

Exemption granted subject to all just exceptions.

The applications are disposed of accordingly.

W.P.(CRL) 553/2015

1. The present petition prays as follows:-

"1. To issue a writ of protection/any other appropriate Writ, Order or Direction against the respondent Nos.1 and 2, directing them to give adequate security for the protection to the life and liberty of petitioner and his family;

2. To issue an appropriate Writ, Order of Direction against the respondent No.1, directing to compensate the petitioner for his suffering and disability in his hand;

3. To pass an order to set aside orders dated 12.08.2013 and 24.09.2013 passed by Ld. ASJ-04 & Spl Judge (NDPS), South East, New Delhi in FIR No.354 of 2013, PS- Jamia Nagar, under sections 307/326/341/34 IPC; and

4. To issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction against the respondent No.1, directing it to conduct fair and unbiased investigation or

5. To pass any such other Order or Direction which this Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case."

2. Insofar as prayer clause 1 is concerned, the petitioner is entitled to his

safety, security and well being. Resultantly, the police is directed to provide

adequate protection to him. The Beat Constable of the area shall be

sensitized in this behalf and telephone number of the Beat Constable as well

as the SHO of the concerned Police Station shall be provided to the

petitioner, in order to enable the latter to approach the former, in the event of

any threat or apprehension.

3. Insofar as prayer clause 2 is concerned, the present petition alleges

negligence on the part of the police. However, the petition is completely

bereft of any details as to how the police has been negligent, insofar as the

present petitioner is concerned. The same are, consequently, just bald

assertions, unsupported by any material. The prayer is, therefore, devoid of

merit and cannot be countenanced by this Court.

4. Coming to the third prayer in the present petition, it is observed that

the orders granting regular bail to the private respondents were passed by the

concerned Courts as far back as on 12.08.2013 and 24.09.2013. Learned

counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has been unable to show how

the private respondents, who were enlarged on bail by the competent Courts,

have violated the terms and conditions on which they were enlarged on bail.

Even otherwise, the present prayer has been sought belatedly on behalf of the

petitioner for reasons best known to him. The said prayer is untenable at this

stage.

5. Insofar as the prayer clause 4 is concerned, it is noticed that the charge

sheet in the subject FIR has already been filed on behalf of the police. The

matter is pending adjudication before the concerned trial court. The

petitioner as the complainant in the subject FIR would be at liberty to

approach the trial court in this behalf, if so advised, in accordance with law.

6. The present petition is consequently an abuse of the process of the

Court and is accordingly dismissed.

7. No costs.

SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J

OCTOBER 08, 2015 dn