No security for protectees misusing facility, rules HC

The Punjab and Haryana High Court ruled that individuals misusing security arrangements for personal gains or intimidating others disqualify themselves from continued state-sponsored protection. The court stressed that personal security at the state’s expense was not an entitlement; it should only be granted to those genuinely facing threat to life and liberty.

Rs 50K costs imposed

• Plea dismissed with Rs 50,000 costs against individual who had accused ex-cabinet minister in double vote scam
• The court said personal security at the state’s expense was not an entitlement; it should only be granted to those genuinely facing threat to life and liberty.

The assertion came as Justice Vinod S Bhardwaj dismissed with Rs 50,000 costs a petition filed by Vaneet Mahajan, who had initiated proceedings against an ex-cabinet minister in double vote scam. Another criminal complaint was subsequently filed by him against the minister in an Amritsar court alleging issuing of defamatory statements to tarnish his reputation.

Mahajan also lodged an FIR during the pendency of two criminal complaints alleging that certain unidentified persons fired shots at him with an intention to kill him. The FIR was investigated by the police before filing an untraced report. Efforts were not made by him to contest the report. The minister was declared innocent by the police in another FIR lodged by him alleging another attack. No chargesheet was filed against the minister in the matter. Besides this, certain other proceedings were initiated by Mahajan.

After going through the record and the documents placed before the Bench, Justice Bhardwaj asserted: “The continued and heightened involvement of respondent-Vaneet Mahajan in criminal offences, including heinous offence under Section 307 of the IPC, clearly shows that he is exerting influence and stroking his ego by flexing muscles under the security cover. The security personnel deployed with him are being used to overawe the people.”

The Bench also took note of the state counsel’s submission that the respondent was manipulating alleged bid on his life by getting a shot fired at his vehicle only to claim continuation of security cover. “The conduct of respondent-Vaneet Mahajan about steering and manipulating an alleged firing on his vehicle only for the continuation of a security cover deserves to be deprecated,” the court asserted.

The Bench added the security cover granted to the respondent had already been withdrawn consequent upon his arrest in a criminal case registered against him. As such, a petition filed by his mother was rendered infructuous.

Before parting with the case, Justice Bhardwaj asserted fraudulent means were adopted by Vaneet Mahajan to seek extension of security by staging an attack on himself and then filing an affidavit before the high court, by “portraying and exerting facts that were known to him to be incorrect”. The court as such was dismissing his petition with Rs 50, 000 costs.su