1 CRWP-8885-2026 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 119 CRWP-8885-2026 (O&M) Date of decision: 27.07.2026 WILLIAM MASIH ALIAS BAWI PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL Present: Mr. Manoj R. Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Akash Yadav, AAG Punjab. *** Shalini Singh Nagpal, J. (Oral) 1. Apprehending threat to their life and liberty, petitioners have filed the present petition with a prayer to direct respondents No.1 to 3 to protect their life and liberty from respondents No.4 to 6. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent No.6- Dilbagh Singh was affiliated with the ruling party and had been coercing the petitioner and his family members to forcibly attend and participate in political rallies. When petitioner refused, he maliciously connived with respondents No.4 and 5, who implicated him in a false NDPS case and also extorted ₹10,00,000/- from him as bribe. A detailed representation was moved in this regard to the official respondents on 21.07.2026 but no concrete action was taken. In the meanwhile, petitioner was implicated in another false case of wandering and vagrancy. 3. Notice of motion to the official respondents only. 4. Mr. Akash Yadav, AAG Punjab accepts notice on behalf of the official respondents and submits that petitioner was accused in FIR No.29 dated 23.02.2026 under Sections 21, 61 and 85 of the Narcotic Drugs and HARPREET SINGH CHAUHAN 2026.07.28 16:10 I agree to specified portions of this document 2 CRWP-8885-2026 (O&M) Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Police Station Dera Baba Nanak, District Gurdaspur. Apart from that case, no other case was registered against the petitioner except for a DDR. He further submits that petitioner was called only once in the police station with regard to the NDPS case registered against him and thereafter, petitioner was never summoned to the Police Station. 5. Concededly, petitioner is accused in FIR No.29 dated 23.02.2026 under Sections 21, 61 and 85 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, wherein, he has been enlarged on regular bail. Whether or not the case has been maliciously registered by respondents No.4 and 5 in connivance with respondent No.6, being disputed question of fact, cannot be decided in these proceedings. The allegations levelled by the petitioner can only be determined upon conclusion of trial by the Court of competent jurisdiction. However, in case presence of petitioner is required in the police station, he shall be served prior notice, as per law. 6. The petition stands disposed of on the terms above. (SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL) JUDGE 27.07.2026 HS.CHAUHAN Whether Speaking/Reasoned : Yes/No Whether Reportable : Yes/No HARPREET SINGH CHAUHAN 2026.07.28 16:10 I agree to specified portions of this document