Punjab and Haryana High Court: In a writ petition filed by a man, who was being harassed by a gangster, seeking protection of his and his family’s life and liberty, the Single Judge Bench of Harpreet Singh Brar, J., allowed the petition, directing that the department concerned to take swift action towards providing protection to the petitioner and his family. The Court also provided detailed directions for the establishment of a criminal justice and legal response mechanism to counter gang violence and organised crime.
Background
In 2024, the petitioner received a WhatsApp call on his mobile from a foreign number, which he did not pick up. Thereafter, he received a voice message from someone presenting himself to be RG,who demanded Rs. 2 Crores as ransom. In the following months, the petitioner received multiple threatening calls and messages, even a handwritten letter.
Recently, the petitioner’s nephew also began receiving similar threatening calls from foreign numbers. Hence, he filed the present petition.
Analysis and Decision
At the outset, the Court stated that it was under-prepared to substantially and meaningfully combat the epidemic of gang-sponsored violence and harassment. In this regard, the Court noted that while acknowledging the threat posed by these gangsters, the Legislature added organised crimes as an offence in the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNS’), which was previously missing from the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’). Furthermore, the Punjab Government issued an addendum to define ‘organised crime’, ‘gang’, and ‘gangster’ in Section 111 of the BNS.
The Court remarked that organised crime thrives in a culture of fear. Gangs instill a pervasive sense of threat to personal safety and property, which coerces individuals into compliance. This fear-driven submission further entrenches their control, creating a sense of helplessness among the citizenry.
The Court stated that breaking this vicious cycle demands a commitment to the creation of a secure environment, where the public feels empowered to report crimes without fear of retaliation. A community that feels protected by its law enforcement agencies and trusts its institutions can be the most effective tool to counter the influence of organised crime. The Court added that the State owes a duty to its citizens to ensure their safety. It is only when security and subsistence are not under threat, can a people truly make progress, contribute to society and build a life for themselves. Allowing lawlessness to propagate unchecked undermines the order, and thereby peace, painstakingly maintained by the justice administration mechanism.
Regarding the facts of the case, the Court noted that since 2024, the petitioner and his family had been living under constant concern for their life owing to the constant threats made by RG, a known gangster. He threatened to kill the petitioner’s children and family. The Court remarked that it was hard to imagine that the petitioner was getting a good night’s sleep since last year, owing to the immense psychological burden he was put under. For over a year now, the petitioner had been running from pillar to post to have an FIR registered against the culprits. However, it was to no avail. The Court remarked that the petitioner’s story, unfortunately, was one of many.
The Court commented that gangster culture, particularly in the form of extortion rackets, had emerged as a significant threat to social order in today’s time, fostering an environment of fear and lawlessness. The glorification of violence, the normalisation of criminal behavior, and the recruitment of vulnerable youth into gangs not only perpetuate crime but erode public trust in the justice system. The Court further stated that a firm hand, with stringent law enforcement and legal measures, is essential to dismantling extortion rackets, deterring future criminal enterprises, and safeguarding the moral fabric of society. The judiciary must ensure that those who engage in such nefarious activities face the full brunt of the law, sending a strong message that such criminality will not be tolerated.
Directions
Given the aforesaid, the Court, in a previous order dated 24-04-2025, directed Punjab and Haryana to file their responses and apprise the Court of the extent and nature of preparedness to combat organised crime. Upon considering the replies filed by the States, the Court provided certain suggestions and directions based on the suggestions, which are as follows:
A. For the Investigating Authorities:
-
Mandatory registration of an FIR promptly upon receipt of information regarding gang-related activities. However, the same must not be uploaded on the concerned police portal.
-
The investigation in such cases must be conducted by an officer of the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police (‘DSP’).
-
A toll-free helpline number, email ID, and online portal shall be set up for reporting gang-related crimes. Steps must be taken to sensitise the public towards the same.
-
District-wise units of AGTF and STF in Punjab and Haryana, respectively, must be established. These units shall be headed by a Nodal Officer of the rank of Superintendent of Police (‘SP’) or the Deputy Commissioner of Police (‘DCP’), as the case may be. A State-level headquarters under the aegis of an officer of the level of ADGP must also be established.
-
The ADGP shall also conduct periodic meetings with the district heads to collate information and monitor their functioning.
-
The ADPGs must also meet their counterparts in the neighbouring states and the central agencies every three months and share the intelligence so acquired.
-
Forensic examination of any devices found on the accused shall be mandatory. The scope of the examination shall include but not be limited to call detail records, financial transactions, and location tracking.
-
It shall be mandatory to enquire into the proceeds of crime acquired by indulging in illegal gang-related activities. The same may be attached under Section 107 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNSS’).
-
If required, orders may be obtained under Section 303 of the BNSS to prohibit the transfer or removal of prisoners from their lodgment place for one year or until completion of the trial.
-
The PWP Scheme must be amended to ensure it aligns with the guidelines in Mahender Chawla v. Union of India, (2019) 14 SCC 615.
-
The local police officers of the District level AGTF/STF units must be trained and sensitised appropriately to deal with cases of organised criminal syndicates.
-
A Standard Operating Procedure (‘SOP’) dealing with organised crime shall be adopted, formulated, and circulated to the State police force, within two months. In addition to the abovementioned directions, the same shall also meaningfully shed light on the following aspects:
a) Meaning and scope of organised crime concerning Sections 111 and 112 of the BNS.
b) Registration of an FIR.
c) Collecting evidence from all electronic devices available, including CCTV cameras, and any devices found on the accused or at his place of habitual residence.
d) Forensic analysis of the said devices.
e) Freezing bank accounts to block the flow of cash.
f) Monitoring social media platforms to gather intelligence and disrupt the spread of rumours.
g) Appropriate action for using social media as a device to spread fear or threaten individuals.
h) Time-bound, swift investigation.
i) Ensuring the safety of the witnesses.
j) Sensitisation and awareness events to build public confidence.
k) Approval of Nodal Officer before submitting the final report under Section 193 of the BNSS.
l) Identification of areas where instances of organized crime are carried out.
B. For Judicial Officers:
-
Scrutinise the final report submitted under Section 193 of the BNSS to ensure that the investigating officers are not acting under duress.
-
Apprise the District and Sessions Judge (‘DSJ’) of incidents of intimidation that could affect the safety of a witness.
-
The DSJ shall be duty-bound to assess the degree of threat and proceed per the relevant Witness Protection Scheme.
Accordingly, the Court disposed of the petition, noting that the Ministry of Home Affairs had assessed the nature of the threat to the petitioner, and the report was duly communicated to Haryana. Additionally, the department concerned was directed to take swift action towards providing protection to the petitioner and his family in accordance with the aforesaid Central government’s Report.
[Ran Veer v. State of Haryana, Citation No. of 2024, decided on 21-05-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the petitioner: Gourav Verma and Ajay Gupta
Amicus Curiae: Preetinder Singh Ahluwalia and Bhavi Kapur
For the respondent: Additional Solicitor General of India Satya Pal Jain, Sangeeta Srivastava, DAG of Haryana Geeta Sharma, Additional A.G. of Punjab Subhash Godara
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
