PANKAJ TRIPATHI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner's father was a Civil Surgeon and was murdered on 25.05.1980 at Mirzapur. A first information report was lodged and upon investigation a charge sheet was filed in which respondent no.6 Vijay Kumar Mishra an accused. The trial in case crime no. 157 of 1980 is pending for the last 34 years. This respondent no.6 is presently a sitting Member of the Legislative Assembly from the ruling party. The petitioner fearing threat of his life was provided a security by the State for the period 28.04.2011 to 27.10.2011 which was subsequently withdrawn by an order dated 06.04.2012. The petitioner thereafter moved several applications before the Senior Superintendent of Police, Allahabad praying that he should be provided security, which has remained pending.

(2.) On the other hand, by an order dated 25.10.2013 respondent no.5, Smt. Seema Mishra, daughter of Vijay Kumar Mishra was granted 'X' category security and, by another order dated 31.10.2013 'Y' category security was provided to respondent no.6, Vijay Kumar Mishra. The petitioner being aggrieved by the grant of such kind of security to respondent nos. 5 and 6 filed the present writ petition praying that such security cover should be withdrawn.

(3.) This Court while entertaining this writ petition on 20.02.2014 found that 60 criminal cases were pending against Vijay Kumar Mishra, in spite of which 'Y' category security was granted in his favour. The Court directed the State Government to provide details of the number of meetings of the State Level Security Committee, which had taken place and whether the State Level Security Committee had considered the threat perception. The Court directed the State to place the relevant materials before the Court. The Court, after considering the matter found that on the basis of the instructions received by the Standing Counsel, the State Level Security Committee had not considered the threat perception and since no relevant material was placed before the Court, an order dated 20.02.2013 was passed directed the Standing Counsel to file a counter affidavit. The Court further directed 'X' and 'Y' category security provided to respondent nos. 5 and 6 should be immediately withdrawn.