Police must objectively assess genuine, imminent threats and provide protection where necessary.

The petitioners, who are family members of Jagjeet Singh @ Jagga, filed a writ petition under Article 226 seeking directions for assessment of the threat perception to their life and personal liberty and, if a genuine and imminent threat was found, for provision of police protection.

They also sought preservation of CCTV footage and other electronic records allegedly relevant to their apprehension, to prevent such evidence from being erased, overwritten, destroyed, or otherwise becoming unavailable.

The petitioners submitted that Jagjeet Singh @ Jagga had been in judicial custody since 22 August 2026 in connection with the criminal case and was also proceeded against under the Gangsters Act, giving rise to a serious apprehension regarding their safety.

The State opposed the petition through its learned A.G.A.

Whether the concerned police authorities should assess the petitioners’ apprehension of threat to their life and personal liberty and provide preventive or protective measures if a genuine, real, and imminent threat is established?

Whether directions should be issued for preservation of CCTV footage and other relevant electronic records under the control of the concerned police authorities?

Whether such directions could be issued without expressing any opinion on the merits of the criminal proceedings pending against Jagjeet Singh @ Jagga?

The Court applied Article 226 of the Constitution, which empowers the High Court to issue appropriate writs, orders, and directions for enforcement of legal and fundamental rights, including the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21.

The Court directed that any assessment of threat must be objective, expeditious, and in accordance with law, and that protective action could follow only upon a finding of a genuine, real, and imminent threat.

It further applied the principle that police authorities must prevent unlawful interference, intimidation, harassment, coercion, or threats and must preserve relevant electronic evidence in accordance with applicable law and procedure, subject to its availability and lawful relevance.

No judicial precedent or specific statutory provision was cited in the order.

The Court did not adjudicate the truth of the allegations against Jagjeet Singh @ Jagga or determine the merits of the pending criminal proceedings.

Having regard to the petitioners’ stated apprehension, his incarceration, and the surrounding criminal proceedings, the Court considered it appropriate to require the concerned Station House Officers to examine any representation submitted by the petitioners and objectively assess the existence of a threat.

The Court made police protection conditional upon the competent authority finding a genuine, real, and imminent threat, thereby avoiding an automatic grant of protection while safeguarding the petitioners’ Article 21 rights.

It also directed preservation of CCTV footage and other relevant electronic records for the specified places and periods identified in the petitioners’ representation, subject to legal relevance and availability.

These directions were expressly separated from, and made without prejudice to, the independent criminal investigation and proceedings.

If a genuine, real, and imminent threat was found, the police authorities were directed to provide appropriate preventive and protective measures and to ensure that no person unlawfully intimidated, harassed, coerced, threatened, or interfered with the petitioners.

The authorities were further directed to take lawful steps to preserve the relevant CCTV footage and electronic records identified in the representation, subject to availability and lawful relevance.

The Court clarified that the order expressed no opinion on the merits of the criminal proceedings, which were to continue independently and in accordance with law.

Pending applications, if any, were also disposed of.