'We Don't Know If He Even Wants It' : Bombay High Court Disposes Plea For Z-Plus Security To Adar Poonawalla

A division bench of Justices SS Shinde and NJ Jamadar observed it had entertained the plea "more than necessary" and wouldn't grant relief when it was unaware if Poonawalla even knew such a plea existed or agreed with the petitioner's contentions.

"We do not know if the person for whom you are seeking protection is aware of this petition or not. He is not before us. Mr Thakare has made his statement. We can't go on passing directions behind his back. We have entertained your petition more than necessary," the bench observed.

The court's observation was in response to Chief Public Prosecutor Deepak Thalare's statement on behalf of the State that Poonawalla will be given security when he lands in India, depending on his requirement, and the threat perception at that time.

Advocate Datta Mane's writ petition, invoking Article 226 sought registration of an FIR against those allegedly giving threats to Poonawalla.

His plea cited Poonawalla's interviews published in English dailies to state that the Poonallwala and his family, "live savers of India," are under threat.

"The petitioner submits that he was shocked and surprised to see the news report which shows that CEO Adar Poonalwalla has left India and gone to the United Kingdom, before travel restrictions were imposed on April 23, 202."

In an interview to "The Times," London Poonawalla said that Chief Ministers of States and businessmen had threatened him.

Mane had claimed that the "Y Security" given to Poonawalla after he left the country was an eyewash, the petitioner says SII's properties also need to be protected.