HAJI ABDUL HAKIM Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents.

(2.) This writ petition has been filed against the decision of the High Level Committee issued under the signature of Principal Secretary, Home, Uttar Pradesh dated 26th October, 2012 contained in Annexure-5 to the writ petition. By that decision, the prayer of the petitioner for grant of a gunner for personal security has been declined after recording therein the earlier direction of this Court dated 31.08.2012 passed in the Writ Petition filed by the petitioner bearing number 43631 of 2012.

(3.) From the reference dated 25.4.2012 made by the District Level Officials contained in Annexure-4 to the writ petition, it has been shown that the Committee has noted that persons, who have been convicted in the year 2003 in relation to murder of petitioner's brother and who are on bail in an appeal pending before this Court since 2003, are habitual criminals and petitioner apprehends threat to his life from them. District Level Committee has referred to Guidelines contained in Government Orders dated 5.5.2008 and has expressed an opinion that as per those Guidelines, petitioner may be provided a Guard on payment of 25% cost, but as it appears from the impugned order, the said recommendation has not been accepted. The High Level Committee in the impugned order has considered the facts disclosed by the petitioner in his application dated 12.9.2012 including the murder of his brother in 2001 leading to conviction of the criminals who have been released on bail. The fact that in the year 2009, the brother of the petitioner was attacked by the criminals leading to a case under Section 307 of I.P.C. and under Section 25 of the Arms Act, which is pending in the Court, has also been considered by the High Level Committee. It has been noticed that the petitioner possesses Revolver and a Rifle. One of his brothers possesses a Revolver and his father has a D.B.B.L. license. After considering all the relevant facts, the High Level Committee has come to the opinion that the opinion of the District Level Committee was not justified as the petitioner possesses sufficient arms for his security and action has already been taken against the accused persons in accordance with law.