Bharat Express

High Court Directs Police Protection For Businessman Citing Threats From BJP MP Kirron Kher

Aggarwal, through senior advocate Anmol Rattan Sidhu, filed a petition expressing fear for their lives due to alleged threats from BJP MP Kirron Kher and her aide Sahdev Salaria.

High Court Directs Police Protection For Businessman Citing Threats From BJP MP Kirron Kher

High Court Directs Police Protection For Businessman Citing Threats From BJP MP Kirron Kher

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has issued a directive instructing the Chandigarh Police to provide a week-long protection to businessman Chaittnya Aggarwal and his family. Aggarwal, through senior advocate Anmol Rattan Sidhu, filed a petition expressing fear for their lives due to alleged threats from BJP MP Kirron Kher and her aide Sahdev Salaria.

The petition outlined financial disputes as a potential motive for the threats, stating that Aggarwal received ₹8 crore from Kirron Kher for investment, having returned ₹2 crore with the remainder pending. Market fluctuations prompted Aggarwal to request time for profit generation and repayment.

Also Read: Mahadev App Promoter Ravi Uppal Detained In Dubai, Faces Possible Deportation To India

Aggarwal claimed harassment and threats demanding immediate repayment with interest from Kher and Salaria. A response from Kirron Kher is awaited. Public prosecutor Manish Bansal informed the court that no police complaints were lodged by Aggarwal, his wife, or daughters. He also highlighted the availability of helpline number 112 for reporting threats.

Petitioner’s counsel Sidhu argued that the urgency to seek court protection shouldn’t be grounds for denial based on respondent Kirron Kher’s profile. The court, on December 11, emphasized the importance of constitutional jurisdiction and ordered police protection for a week, subject to strict conditions.

Also Read: Mahadev App Promoter Ravi Uppal Detained In Dubai, Faces Possible Deportation To India

The court clarified that if the petitioner no longer required protection, it could be discontinued before the one-week term. Stringent conditions were imposed, restricting the petitioner and his wife’s movement outside their residence boundaries, except for essential purposes. Any violation would automatically revoke the protection.

The court aimed to prevent misuse of protection and emphasized that flaunting the imposed conditions would lead to an automatic recall of the protection order.