237 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRWP-10199-2024 Date of decision: 30th April, 2025 Sunil Kumar … Petitioner Versus State of Punjab & others … Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL Present: Mr. L.M. Gulati and Mr. Ashwani Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Shiva Khurmi, Asst. Advocate General, Punjab for the respondent/State. MANJARI NEHRU KAUL, J. 1. The instant criminal writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ, order or direction, in the nature of mandamus, to respondent No.2 to protect the life and liberty of the petitioner and his family members at the hands of respondent No.3 and his subordinate staff. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is being subjected to undue harassment at the hands of local police officials. It is contended that the elder son of the petitioner, Ritik Malhotra, has been falsely implicated in 5 separate cases, including those registered under the provisions of NDPS Act. RATTAN PAL SINGH 2025.05.02 17.21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRWP-10199-2024 2 3. It is further alleged that during a police raid conducted at the rented premises of Ritik Malhotra, an amount of ₹29,20,000/- was seized. 4. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, this amount has been wrongly shown as “drug money” in the FIR in question. 5. Learned counsel has drawn the attention of this Court to FIR No.0172 dated 29.09.2024 under Sections 21-B, 27-A, 29 of the NDPS Act registered at Police Station Chhehartta, District Amritsar (Annexure P-1) wherein it is alleged that 175 grams of heroin, along with the above mentioned cash, was recovered from 3 persons. However, it is submitted that as per the FIR itself, only one accused, namely Sukhchain Singh alias Kala, was brought to the location from which the alleged recovery from a Scorpio vehicle was made. 6. It is also the case of the petitioner that the raid in question was conducted in gross violation of mandatory legal procedures. 7. On being put to notice on the previous date of hearing, learned State counsel, on instructions, submits that Ritik Malhotra, son of the petitioner, is indeed an accused in 5 separate criminal cases involving serious offences under the NDPS Act. It is submitted, on further instructions, that during the course of investigation, the name of Ritik Malhotra surfaced pursuant to the disclosure statement of co- accused Sukhchain Singh. Acting on said disclosure, the police conducted a raid near the premises where Ritik Malhotra was stated to RATTAN PAL SINGH 2025.05.02 17.21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRWP-10199-2024 3 be present. It is further submitted that Ritik Malhotra was found sitting inside a Scorpio vehicle at the time, but managed to flee from the spot. However, an amount suspected to be “drug money” was recovered from the said vehicle. It has also been apprised that Ritik Malhotra has since been apprehended and is currently in judicial custody. It has been emphatically stated, on instructions, by the learned State counsel that no further raids have been carried out after the arrest of Ritik Malhotra. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant material on record. 9. On the consideration of the submissions advanced, it is not in dispute that the son of the petitioner stands accused in a case under the NDPS Act and is already in judicial custody. No material has been brought on record to indicate that any further coercive action has been initiated by the respondents following his arrest. 10. In light of the prevailing factual matrix, this Court does not find any justifiable ground, at this stage, to issue directions in the nature, as sought by the petitioner. Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed. (MANJARI NEHRU KAUL) JUDGE April 30, 2025 rps Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No RATTAN PAL SINGH 2025.05.02 17.21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document