SATISH KUMAR PANDEY Vs. RAJIV RATAN SHAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE full facts and cir cumstances relating to the disposal of the instant case were referred to in our order dated 8-12-97, which we reproduce: "having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances, we implea'd the State of Uttar Pradesh through its Home Secretary as a party-respondent. At the same time we also implead, in the interest of justice, the Senior Superinten dent of Police, Allahabad as a party respon dent. " THE petitioner has come up with a prayer to punish respondent No. 4 Ram Daras son of not known S. O. Police Sta tion Kydganj district Allahabad for com mitting wilful gross contempt of this Court asserting following facts in his af fidavit : THE then S. S. P. , Allahabad passed orders providing the petitioner two armed guards for protecting his life and property which was in imminent danger, from 17-12-95, though the need had arisen on 15/16-3- 93 when Shyam Narain son of Bachcha Tewari Resident of Kydganj was murdered by Moti Lai, Kanhaiya Lai and Martand Prakash at about 11. 45 in presence of Narain Das and Rang Nath Tewari, both sons of Shyam Narain and the petitioner who were returning from their houses after a Bhoj (feast) ; that F. I. R. dated 16-3-93 was lodged at 00. 45 a. m. by Narain Das with Police Station Kydganj, which was registered as Crime Case No. 119 of 1993 under Section 302, IPC; that in fact the killers are drug mafias who had spoiled Rang Nath son of Shyam Narain one of the sons of the informant by developing habit of taking of drugs ; that on objection being taken by the members of the family Shyam Narain was also killed; that in fact the murderers of Shyam Narain are powerful and having a rich criminal organisation and for them it is very easy to eliminate who dares to object or to expose them; that the FIR in respect to murder of Shyam Narain was lodged by his son Narain Das, who was terrorised and threatened to such an extent by his enemies that he left Mohalla Kydganj and shifted to Naini but after being released on bail Prakash with the aid of the other mem bers of his Gang killed him in the board day night of 30th November, 1995 for the pur pose of destroying the evidence, and in that connection FIR dated 30-11-95 was lodged with Police Station Naini ; that after the murder the second eye-witness Rang Nath left for an unknown place and his whereabouts are not known due to the terror of the accused persons; that in such backdrop only the petitioner remains as an eye-witness of the murder of Shyam Narain and in case he is killed then no other witness will remain for giving evidence and as such his life is in imminent danger who has received threats many times by the accused persons for not giving evidence otherwise to face death; that the petitioner approached the S. S. P. Al lahabad for providing necessary armed guards to protect his life on 15-12-95 who after assessing the gravity of the terror created by the accused persons and danger to the life of the petitioner, allowed two armed guards on 17-12-95 ; that the petitioner on 13-9-96 moved the S. S. P. Al lahabad requesting to extend the period of armed guards which, however, was refused and the petitioner moved this Court by filing a criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 30549 of 1996 which was disposed of on 20-9-96 with a direction to consider his application with further observation that since criminal trial is pending against him the Court feels that it will be the duty of the State to protect his life ; that the S. S. P. Allahabad provided two armed guards to the petitioner from 20- 9-96 which, how ever, have been withdrawn vide order dated 27-7-97 without stating any reason; that thereafter the petitioner moved the S. S. P. Allahabad again through an applica tion dated 31-7-97 which, however, was not allowed and as such he again moved this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 25369 of 1997 which was finally disposed of vide order dated 4-8-97 with an observa tion/direction that if the representation is made by him to the S. S. P. Allahabad stat ing facts mentioned in the order in that event representation will be decided by the S. S. P. Allahabad by a speaking order; that in compliance of the direction of this Court the petitioner filed a fresh applica tion dated 13-8-97 alongwith a copy of the order dated 4-8-97 passed by this Court before the S. S. P. Allahabad who passed an order dated 24-8-97 directing the police Upadhishak Pragyan to provide a Gunner to the petitioner for 15 days only on his cent percent cost; that it was the duty of the State to protect the petitioner and it is wholly wrong to protect him at such cost for 15 days only and accordingly the said order dated 24-8-97 is not sustainable in the eye of law ; that the petitioner being poor cannot afford such expensive protec tion which is violative of rights and per sonal liberty etc. On 25-11-1997 we had passed the following order: "having heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Pradeep Kumar, learned Addl. Chief Standing Counsel appearing on be half of the then Senior Superintendent of Police, Allahabad at some length we direct the petitioner to delete the names of respondent Nos. 1,2 and 3 and put up this matter tomorrow to enable the learned Counsel for the respon dent No. 3 to have further instructions from the present S. S. P. Allahabad in regard to the ques tion as to whether in view of fact that the petitioner is a very important prosecution wit ness in a murder trial whether in that view of the matter the security can be deputed without charging any money from the petitioner. " On 26-11-1997 we had passed follow ing orders: "having heard the learned Counsel for the parties at some length, we are of the view that at present a report be called from the Dis trict Judge, Allahabad as to what is the stage of Crime Case No. 119/93 under Section 302, IPC, P. S. Kydganj, District Allahabad (State v. Moti Lal, Martand Prakash and Kanhaiya Lal) whether any commitment has been made or not and if so what is the reason for not doing so ? And within what time commitment can be made ? All these informations be secured by the office forthwith and the case will be put up again on 4-12-97. " On 4-12-97 we had directed the Dis trict Judge, Allahabad to obtain an ex planation which he has submitted. His ex planation reads thus: "with reference to the above letter and the order of the Hon'ble High Court dated 26-11 -19971 have to inform that case Crime No. 119/93 under Section 302, IPC of P. S. Kydganj, Allahabad State v. Moti Lal has been committed to the Court of Sessions and is S. T No. 231/96. This S. T has been transferred to the Court of III Addl. Sessions Judge, Allahabad for disposal. THE IIIrd Addl. Sessions Judge has fixed 4-2-98 for framing of the charges against the accused. " From the statements made in the counter-affidavit it appears that the security of the petitioner has been withdraw on the ground that he figures as an accused in 307, IPC case but nevertheless thereafter a fresh security has been provided subject to payment of 10% cost by him to the State. We do not appreciate the stand taken in the counter-affidavit. It is not the case of the respondents in their counter that the allegations made by the petitioner in regard to successive deaths at the instance of the accused persons who are drug mafias is untrue. THE earliest observation made by this Court that in such a backdrop it is the duty of the State to protect the petitioner to us appears to have not been well appreciated inasmuch as initially the petitioner was asked to deposit 100% cost for providing security but on the second occasion though at a cost of 10% but for only 15 days. Mr. Pradeep Kumar, learned Addl. Chief Standing Counsel prays to contact the Govern ment in this regard. In the meantime, in the interest of justice, we direct the Senior Superin tendent of Police, Allahabad to provide security immediately to protect the person of the petitioner. Put up this matter, as requested by Sri Pradeep Kumar, learned Addl. Chief Standing Counsel on 15-12- 97. A copy of this order is required to be handed over by the office to Sri Pradeep Kumar, learned Addl. Chief Standing Counsel by tomorrow. "

(2.) SRI Pradeep Kumar, learned Chief Standing Counsel, informs us with refer ence to letter dated 12th December, 1997 of the S. S. P. , Allahabad, which is also on the record, that the petitioner has been provided a Gunner for his security. The State Government has also got no objec tion to the course adopted by the S. S. P. , Allahabad. He, however, comes up with a prayer to direct expeditious disposal of the criminal trial in which the petitioner is to be examined.

(3.) THE office is directed to hand-over a copy of this order to Sri Pradeep Kumar, learned Addl. Chief Standing Counsel for its communication to the S. S. P. , Al lahabad. THE office is also directed to despatch a copy of this order immediately to the District, Judge, Allahabad for a fol low-up action by III Addl. Sessions Judge, Allahabad, in seisin of the session trial aforementioned. .