Full Text
#13 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 08.10.2015 LIYAQAT ALI ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Kamran Malik, Advocate with Mr. Mobin Ullah, Advocate
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
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.
2015:DHC:8496-DB
JUDGMENT
1. The present petition prays as follows:-
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