Asaram Bapu Case: Punjab & Haryana HC Seeks Haryana Govt Response on Witness Protection Denial !
Prime Vista News
Punjab and Haryana High Court issues notice to Haryana government over denial of witness protection benefits to a key witness in cases against Asaram Bapu and Narayan Sai.
Chandigarh:
In a significant development in one of India’s high-profile criminal cases, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has issued a notice to the Haryana government over the alleged denial of witness protection benefits to a key prosecution witness in cases involving controversial godman Asaram Bapu and his son Narayan Sai.
The matter came up before Justice Jagmohan Bansal, who has sought a formal response from the state authorities. The court has scheduled the next hearing for August 13, indicating that the issue will be examined in detail in the coming months.
Petition Challenges Rejection of Protection Benefits
The petitioner, described as a crucial prosecution witness in multiple sexual assault and rape cases linked to Asaram Bapu and Narayan Sai, has approached the High Court seeking relief against an order passed by a district-level authority in Panipat.
According to court records accessed by Prime Vistan News, the witness has challenged an order dated September 10, 2025, through which his application for protection under the Haryana Witness Protection Scheme was rejected.
The petition seeks:
- Setting aside of the Panipat authority’s order
- Grant of financial assistance under the protection scheme
- Provision of security cover to ensure safety
The witness has argued that the denial of these benefits exposes him to continued threats and potential harm, given the sensitive nature of the cases in which he has deposed.
Claims of Life-Threatening Attacks
One of the most serious aspects highlighted in the petition is the claim of repeated attempts on the witness’s life.
According to submissions made before the court:
- The witness was allegedly targeted in a firearm attack on May 13, 2015
- He suffered 41% permanent disability as a result of the incident
- An FIR was registered following the attack
The petitioner’s counsel emphasised that despite these circumstances, adequate protection has not been extended by the authorities.
Legal representatives further stated that the witness had made multiple representations to the concerned authorities seeking protection, but these requests were either ignored or rejected without sufficient justification.
Rejection by District Authority
The plea indicates that the petitioner’s application for inclusion under the witness protection scheme was examined by the competent authority at the district level in Panipat.
However, the authority rejected the request, denying:
- Financial assistance
- Security cover
- Other benefits available under the scheme
The reasons for rejection have been contested in the High Court, with the petitioner arguing that the decision fails to take into account the gravity of the threats faced and the role played by him in the prosecution of sensitive criminal cases.
High Court Issues Notice to Haryana
During the hearing, the counsel representing the Haryana government accepted notice on behalf of the state and sought time to file a detailed reply.
The High Court, while issuing notice, did not pass any interim relief but indicated that the matter raises important questions regarding:
- Implementation of witness protection policies
- Responsibility of the state in safeguarding key witnesses
- Adequacy of existing mechanisms in high-risk cases
The court’s intervention is being seen as a step towards ensuring accountability in the enforcement of witness protection frameworks.
Importance of Witness Protection in High-Profile Cases
The issue of witness protection has been a recurring concern in India, particularly in cases involving influential individuals or sensitive allegations.
Legal experts note that witnesses often face:
- Threats to life and safety
- Social and financial pressure
- Intimidation aimed at influencing testimony
In cases such as those involving Asaram Bapu and Narayan Sai, the stakes are particularly high due to the public profile of the accused and the nature of the allegations.
The Haryana Witness Protection Scheme is intended to provide safeguards including identity protection, relocation, financial assistance, and police security, depending on the level of threat assessed.
However, the present case raises questions about:
- Whether the scheme is being effectively implemented
- How threat perception is evaluated
- Whether bureaucratic processes are delaying urgent protection
Background: Cases Against Asaram Bapu and Narayan Sai
Asaram Bapu has been at the centre of multiple criminal cases, including serious allegations of sexual assault. His son Narayan Sai has also faced similar charges in separate cases.
These cases have attracted national attention over the years, with several witnesses playing a crucial role in the prosecution.
Given the sensitivity and visibility of these cases, the safety of witnesses has been a matter of concern for both the judiciary and investigative agencies.
Earlier Report – ‘Call Got Disconnected’: UP Man Feared Killed in Riyadh Missile Strike, Family Awaits Confirmation:
Legal Questions Before the Court
The High Court is expected to examine several key issues when the matter is taken up next:
- Whether the rejection of the witness protection request was legally justified
- Whether due process was followed by the district authority
- Whether the petitioner qualifies for protection under the scheme
- Whether additional safeguards are required in such cases
The outcome could have wider implications for how witness protection schemes are implemented not only in Haryana but also across other states.
State Seeks Time to Respond
During the proceedings, the Haryana government’s law officer requested time to submit a detailed reply addressing the allegations made in the petition.
The court granted time and listed the matter for further hearing on August 13.
Until then, the case remains under judicial consideration, with the High Court expected to scrutinise both the petitioner’s claims and the state’s response before issuing any directions.
Growing Focus on Witness Safety
The case once again brings attention to the broader issue of witness safety in India’s criminal justice system.
While several states have adopted witness protection schemes following Supreme Court guidelines, implementation gaps continue to be reported.
Legal observers say the present case could serve as a benchmark for:
- Strengthening protection mechanisms
- Ensuring timely intervention in high-risk cases
- Enhancing trust in the judicial process
