DURGARAM RAMRAO CHAUDHARY Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, direction is sought against the Respondents to provide necessary and requisite armed police protection to the Petitioner and his family members so as to ensure that the life and limbs of the Petitioner and of his family members are protected from the impending danger. The background, in which this petition has been filed is that: the Petitioner was named as one of the witnesses in the criminal case registered against four gangsters who were arrested with foreign made revolver, pistol and cartridges sometime on 30th March, 2008. FIR in respect of the said offence was registered by A.T.S., Mumbai on 16th April, 2008 for offence punishable under Section 302 and 115 of I.P.C. r/w 3, 25 and 35 of Arms Act, which were added subsequently. Since the Petitioner was one of the important witness in connection with the said criminal case, he was granted police protection on account of perceived threat perception to his life from Bunty Pandey gang. That police protection was continued from 7th June, 2008 till 3rd August,2010, when it was withdrawn abruptly without prior notice to the Petitioner. It is the case of the Petitioner that even while police protection was made available to the Petitioner he had received threatening calls on his land line on 20th December, 2008. As a result, the Petitioner had lodged police complaint, which was registered as N.C. No. 1578 of 2008. It is not in dispute that the Petitioner later on applied for revolver licence, which was granted on 21st July, 2009. Eventually, in March, 2010 the Petitioner deposed during the trial in connection with the criminal case arising out of the FIR 11/2008 registered by A.T.S., Mumbai. As aforesaid, the Petitioner's police protection came to be abruptly withdrawn on 3rd August, 2010. According to the Petitioner, the said criminal trial was pending and the threat perception perceived by the Petitioner was still subsisting, for which reason it was obligatory on the part of the Respondents to continue the police protection to the Petitioner. This is the principal grievance made in the present Petition.

(2.) The Respondents have resisted this Petition by filing affidavit of Bhagwan Gopaji Yashod, Assistant Commissioner of Police. The affidavit discloses that the Senior Inspector of Police of Kapurbavdi Police Station, Thane had submitted report on 24th May, 2010 mentioning that there was no continued threat perception to the Petitioner. On the basis of that report, the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone V, Thane submitted his report on 23rd June, 2010. The proposal regarding continuation of police protection to the Petitioner came up for consideration before the Review Committee consisting of six members headed by Commissioner of Police, Thane on 3rd August, 2010, in which it was eventually decided to discontinue the police protection to the Petitioner as the threat perception was not in existence. It is only thereafter, the police protection provided to the Petitioner was withdrawn on 3rd August, 2010. Besides, it is stated in the reply affidavit that the Petitioner has already been granted revolver licence on 21st July, 2009 and thereafter he has purchased revolver, which was sufficient to safeguard himself. In the circumstances, it is contended on behalf of the Respondent that the Petition is devoid of merits and the same be dismissed.

(3.) During the course of argument Counsel for the Petitioner placed emphasis on the decision of the Apex Court reported in, (2008) 16 SCC 497 in case of National Human Rights Commission v. State of Gujarat and Ors. to contend that even though the Petitioner may have already deposed before the trial Court as prosecution witness, that ought not be made the basis to discontinue the police protection extended to him. The abovesaid decision of the Supreme Court which is pressed into service, is essentially an interim order issuing notice to the State of Gujarat, as also Union of India to respond in the context of the issues referred to therein. In the mean time, the State of Gujarat was directed to provide full and complete protection to the witnesses, their families and their relations in the fact situation of that case.