NEELAM AND OTHERS vs STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS — CRWP/6927/2026

Disposed: --DISPOSED OF on 11th June 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: PHHC011005042026

Filing Number

CRWP/47442/2026

Filing Date

09-Jun-2026

Registration No

CRWP/6927/2026

Registration Date

09-Jun-2026

Judge

Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta

Coram

Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta

Category

47.5 - PROTECTION ( 195 )

Judicial Branch

CRIMINAL BRANCH

Decision Date

11-Jun-2026

Nature of Disposal

--DISPOSED OF

Last updated 13-Jun-2026

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.NEELAM AND OTHERS

    Adv. NIPUN BHARDWAJ

  2. 2.STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

  3. 3.RAJINDER SINGH

  4. 4.SAHIL

  5. 5.DEEPAK KUMAR

  6. 6.SOURBH

  7. 7.SATBIR SINGH

  8. 8.PARDEEP KUMAR

  9. 9.SUBHASH CHAND

  10. 10.MAHAVIR

  11. 11.RAJESH KUMAR

  12. 12.PARMOD KUMAR

  13. 13.PALA RAM

  14. 14.BHAJNU

  15. 15.SURESH KUAMR

  16. 16.MITHU RAM

  17. 17.VIKRAM

  18. 18.SALINDER SINGH

  19. 19.RAJEEV KUMAR

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

  2. 2.STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 11-Jun-2026

    Mr. Justice Deepak GuptaView PDF

    The High Court of Punjab and Haryana disposed of the petition by directing the Superintendent of Police, Kaithal to decide the petitioners' representation within one month and provide necessary protection if any threat to their life and liberty is found. The petitioners, who held government-allotted plots under a welfare scheme for landless persons, sought protection from the Market Committee Chairman who was allegedly interfering with their renovation work and threatening them despite having no court restraint order. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 09-Jun-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. CRWP/6927/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana disposed of the petition by directing the Superintendent of Police, Kaithal to decide the petitioners' representation within one month and provide necessary protection if any threat to their life and liberty is found. The petitioners, who held government-allotted plots under a welfare scheme for landless persons, sought protection from the Market Committee Chairman who was allegedly interfering with their renovation work and threatening them despite having no court restraint order. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case