Uttarakhand High Court
WPCRL/1551/2025 of SATYAVART ARYA Vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND on 27 November 2025
UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Writ Petition No. 1551 of 2025 Satyavart Arya ….....Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand & others ….….Respondents Present:- Mr. Ravindra S. Rawat, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. J.S. Virk, D.A.G. with Mr. Rajesh Joshi, Brief Holder
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
1
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Writ Petition No. 1551 of 2025
Satyavart Arya
….....Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttarakhand & others
….….Respondents
Present:- Mr. Ravindra S. Rawat, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. J.S. Virk, D.A.G. with Mr. Rajesh Joshi, Brief Holder for the State.
Coram:
Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J.
Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J.
Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)
The petitioner seeks directions commanding the respondent nos. 1 and 2 to provide protection to the life and liberty of the petitioner. Petitioner further seeks directions that the respondent nos. 3 to 5 may be directed not to harass, threat or commit violence with him.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the record.
3. It is the case of the petitioner that he had lodged an FIR bearing Crime No.548 of 2025, under Sections 115(2), 126(2), 351(2), 352 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The FIR was unnamed, but subsequently, it was revealed that the private respondents were the assailants, who had attacked the petitioner. Thereafter, the private respondents started threatening the petitioner. The petitioner had approached the Senior Superintendant of Police, Haridwar (“the SSP”), but no action has been taken.
4. The Court had required learned State Counsel to get instructions from the SSP, Haridwar, as to what action has been
2 taken on the representation that was given by the petitioner seeking protection, which is Annexure No.2 to the writ petition.
5. Learned State Counsel gives a statement that the SSP, Haridwar, has received the communication yesterday only, and he has already issued instructions qua providing protection to the petitioner.
5. In the case of Mahender Chawla and Others Vs. Union of India and Others, (2019) 14 SCC 615, Hon'ble Supreme Court has issued directions for making schemes so as to ensure the protection of the witnesses in a criminal case.
6. Since a statement is given that already the SSP, Haridwar, has already issued directions for protection of the petitioner, the writ petition may be disposed of, accordingly.
7. The writ petition is disposed of with the directions to the SSP, Haridwar, to ensure that no harm is caused to the petitioner. He and other witnesses of the crime shall be given adequate protection in accordance with the directions, as issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mahender Chawla (supra).
8. The Court requests learned State Counsel to inform immediately the SSP, Haridwar, so as to ensure the life and liberty of the petitioner and other witnesses of the FIR, which has been lodged by the petitioner.
(Alok Mahra, J.)
(Ravindra Maithani, J.)
27.11.2025 Ravi Bisht