Safiya Malik

The High Court of Punjab & Haryana Single Bench of Justice Harpreet Singh Brar directed the States of Punjab and Haryana to urgently establish dedicated district-wise anti-gang units, implement comprehensive witness protection mechanisms, and formulate a Standard Operating Procedure to tackle organised crime in line with Section 111 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The Court ordered the prompt registration of FIRs upon receiving information of gang-related threats, mandated protection for complainants, and called for coordination between state and central intelligence agencies. Additionally, the State of Haryana was directed to provide security to the petitioner based on the Ministry of Home Affairs’ threat assessment.

The writ petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking protection for the life and liberty of the petitioner and his family, who had received multiple threats of extortion from individuals claiming affiliation with a known gangster. On 1 April 2024, the petitioner received a WhatsApp call from a foreign number, followed by a voice message identifying the sender as Rohit Godara, a member of the Lawrence Bishnoi gang, demanding ₹2 crore. Over the course of the year, similar threats continued through calls, messages, and a handwritten note delivered to the petitioner’s residence. The threats later extended to the petitioner’s nephew in March 2025.

Also Read: Supreme Court Defines Scope Of Section 11 SARFAESI | Disputes Between Banks Must Go To Arbitration | Mandates That Section 11 Is Mandatory And Does Not Require Prior Arbitration Agreement

Despite multiple representations to the local police, including the SHO of Adampur Police Station, Hisar, Superintendent of Police, and DGP Haryana, no FIR was registered initially. Security personnel provided earlier were withdrawn in January 2025, after which threats intensified. It was only after the Court intervened that the Daily Diary Report (DDR) was converted into FIR No.124 dated 5 May 2025 under Sections 384 and 506 IPC.

The Court examined the affidavits submitted by the Additional Director Generals of Police from Haryana and Punjab. The State of Haryana reported the establishment of a Special Task Force (STF) to address gang-related activities, in accordance with Sections 11 and 16 of the Haryana Police Act, 2007. Haryana also cited the use of the EAGLE software for maintaining digital criminal dossiers and coordination with national intelligence agencies via NATGRID and SMAC.

The State of Punjab stated that its Anti-Gangster Task Force (AGTF) operated under the DGP’s supervision and was tasked with intelligence-led legal actions against organised crime. However, the Court noted that despite the notification of the Punjab Witness Protection Scheme, 2024, the Witness Protection Cell mandated by Mahender Chawla v. Union of India (2019) had not yet been established. Moreover, no AGTF police stations existed in Punjab.

The Union of India, through the Additional Solicitor General, submitted that the petitioner’s threat perception had been reviewed and communicated to Haryana, recommending necessary protective measures in line with the Witness Protection Scheme, 2018 and Section 398 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

The Amicus Curiae raised concerns regarding lack of clarity in the operational protocols for citizens under threat and urged the establishment of accessible, anonymous reporting platforms. Drawing from judgments including Bachpan Bachao Andolan, Youth Bar Association of India, and Mahender Chawla, he recommended a dedicated portal, helpline, and comprehensive procedural framework.

The Court recorded its findings in the following terms: “We find ourselves under-prepared to substantially and meaningfully combat the epidemic of gang-sponsored violence and harassment.”

Quoting from the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, the Court observed: “Organised crime shall constitute any continuing unlawful activity... by any person or a group of persons acting in concert... to obtain direct or indirect material benefit including a financial benefit.”

It referred to the Government of Punjab’s notification dated 7 May 2025, which defined terms such as “organised crime,” “gang,” and “gangster” in alignment with Section 111 of the BNS.

On the impact of gang operations, the Court recorded: “Organised crime thrives on a culture of fear. Gangs instill a pervasive sense of threat to personal safety... Breaking this vicious cycle demands a commitment to creation of a secure environment.”

Pinpointing the psychological distress caused by threats, the Bench stated: “It is hard to imagine the petitioner getting a good night’s sleep in the last year, owing to the immense psychological burden he has been put under.”

Citing Mahender Chawla, the Court held: “It is a harsh reality... that accused persons... terrorize or intimidate the witnesses... This unfortunate situation prevails because of the reason that the State has not undertaken any protective measure to ensure the safety of these witnesses.”

On uploading of FIRs, the Court referred to Youth Bar Association of India: “The copies of the FIRs, unless the offence is sensitive in nature... should be uploaded... However, the decision not to upload... shall not be taken by an officer below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police.”

Drawing attention to the lacunae in Punjab’s witness protection policy, the Court noted: “A perusal of the Punjab Witness Protection Scheme, 2024 indicates that the Deputy Commissioner... has been chosen to head the Competent Authority, which is contrary to logic and the law.”

In concluding remarks, the Court recorded: “Gangster culture... has emerged as a significant threat to the social order in today’s time... The judiciary must ensure that those who engage in such nefarious activities face the full brunt of the law.”

The Court directed that the Ministry of Home Affairs had already assessed the nature of threat posed to the petitioner and communicated the findings to the State of Haryana.

Accordingly, the concerned department in the State of Haryana was instructed to take immediate and appropriate action to provide protection to the petitioner and his family, strictly in accordance with the central government’s report dated 13.05.2025.

The writ petition was disposed of in terms of the aforementioned directions issued by the Court.

The Court further ordered that a copy of the judgment be circulated to the Directors General of Police of the States of Punjab and Haryana as well as the Union Territory of Chandigarh for their information and strict compliance.

Also Read: "Fraudulent, Cheating the Government and the People": Madras High Court Upholds Quarry Lease Cancellation and Orders Criminal Prosecution

In addition, the judgment was directed to be shared with all the District and Sessions Judges in the States of Punjab, Haryana, and the Union Territory of Chandigarh for information and compliance. The respective counsels representing the States of Punjab and Haryana and the Union Territory of Chandigarh were also instructed to ensure due compliance with the directions.

All pending miscellaneous applications were directed to stand disposed of in view of the final order passed.

Before concluding, the Court expressed its sincere appreciation and gratitude to Mr. Preetinder Singh Ahluwalia, Amicus Curiae, for the invaluable assistance rendered to the Court during the course of the proceedings.

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: Gourav Verma, Advocate with Ajay Gupta, Advocate

For the Respondents: Satya Pal Jain, Additional Solicitor General of India with Sangeeta Srivastava, Advocate; Geeta Sharma, DAG Haryana; Subhash Godara, Additional A.G. Punjab

Amicus Curiae: Preetinder Singh Ahluwalia, Advocate with Bhavi Kapur, Advocate

Case Title: Ran Veer v. State of Haryana and Others

Neutral Citation: 2025:PHHC:072134

Case Number: CRWP-4004-2025 (O&M)

Bench: Justice Harpreet Singh Brar

[Read/Download order]