MAHENDER PEHLWAN Vs. STATE NCT OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition under Section 482 Cr. P.C. for setting aside of the order dated 19th December, 2012, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge whereby the security provided to the petitioner was withdrawn and the order dated 16th January, 2013 whereby the application seeking review of the order was dismissed.

(2.) IT is alleged in the petition that the petitioner is a prosecution witness in case FIR No.201/2010 u/s 302/307/34 IPC, PS Adarsh Nagar, Delhi. The FIR was registered against eight persons, out of whom three evaded their arrest and were declared proclaimed offender. All the accused are hardened criminals and are involved in other heinous offences. The petitioner started getting the threats to his life, as such, he made an oral request to the learned Additional Sessions Judge for providing him security. SHO, PS Adarsh Nagar was directed to provide the security to the petitioner vide order dated 19 th August, 2011. Subsequently, an application was moved on behalf of the prosecution on 19th December, 2011 for withdrawal of the security provided to the petitioner on the ground that his evidence has already been recorded on 19th August, 2011. The application was allowed vide order dated 19th December, 2012, and the application for review was also dismissed. It was alleged that the order for withdrawal of the security provided to the petitioner was non -existent. In that, the petitioner was accorded security on 19th August, 2011 after he was examined and cross -examined on the ground that he was apprehending danger to his life. One of the co -accused Neeraj was arrested while two are still absconding. Two of the accused have been enlarged on bail. The petitioner apprehends that they would leave no stone unturned to do away with him so that he will not be able to depose against them. Earlier, the petitioner has approached the Court with a similar petition and Commissioner of Police was directed to take a decision within one month with representation for providing security. However, no steps were taken. Reminders have also been sent by the petitioner but the same has been put off with pretext that his representation has been forwarded to the concerned police station for necessary action. Hence this petition.

(3.) DURING the course of argument, it was further submitted that one of the co -accused Neeraj, who was earlier declared proclaimed offender was arrested. After the filing of the supplementary charge sheet, the petitioner has already been examined as a witness qua him. As such, there is no threat to him at present.