Police mandated to protect life and liberty and apprehend absconding accused upon receipt of credible threat complaints.

The petitioner, Sunil Singh, filed a criminal writ petition seeking protection for his life, liberty, and property from respondent nos. 7 to 11 (his cousins and nephews) due to an ongoing land dispute.

The petitioner alleged that the private respondents were threatening him and demanding money.

While an FIR (Khusrupur P.S. Case No. 474/2025) was registered under various sections of the B.N.S., 2023, the petitioner contended that the police were not conducting a fair investigation and failed to apprehend respondent no. 8, who is allegedly a notorious criminal and absconder in twelve cases.

The State argued that the dispute was primarily of a civil/property nature and thus the writ was not maintainable, though they acknowledged responsibility regarding the status of the absconding respondent.

1. Whether the High Court should issue a writ of mandamus to compel respondent authorities to provide police protection to the petitioner against private individuals.

2. Whether the court should direct the police to ensure a free and fair investigation and initiate action against a respondent declared as an absconder.

The court's jurisdiction was invoked under Article 226 of the Constitution of India regarding the protection of life and liberty.

The court deliberated on the police's statutory obligations under the Police Manual and the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (B.N.S.), 2023.

The duty of law enforcement to act upon complaints of threats and to apprehend individuals declared as absconders under the prevailing criminal procedure laws.

The court balanced the private nature of the land dispute with the state's duty to maintain law and order. While the State argued the matter was a property dispute, the Court found merit in the petitioner's claim regarding the lack of action against respondent no. 8, a multi-case accused and alleged absconder.

The Court reasoned that regardless of the underlying civil dispute, the police are duty-bound to act "in accordance with law" whenever a specific complaint regarding a threat to life or property is made.

By directing the Superintendent of Police (Rural) and the SHO to monitor the allegations and the status of the absconder, the Court bridged the gap between a private grievance and the public duty of the police.

Furthermore, the Court ordered these authorities to investigate the criminal antecedents of respondent no. 8 and, if verified as an absconder, to take strict legal action against him.

The petition was disposed of with these specific directions to ensure the authorities act in accordance with law.