VANDAR PUNDALIK PATIL Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition, the petitioner has impugned the order dtd. 14/4/2023, passed by the Respondent No.3 - Commissioner of Police, Thane as well as the impugned communication dtd. 24/4/2023 issued by the Respondent No.1.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Commissioner of Police, Thane, has withdrawn the police protection which was granted to the petitioner from 2016 till 2023, vide the said communication. He submits that the petitioner is a prime witness in the murder case of his son and that having regard to the Government Resolution dtd. 4/1/2018 issued by the Home Department, the petitioner is exempted from paying any protection fee, as demanded vide the said impugned communication. He submits that even as per the Maharashtra Witness Protection and Security Act , 2017, the petitioner is entitled to police protection having regard to the petitioner's income. He submits that since 2016 till 2023, the petitioner was given police protection and now the said police protection has been withdrawn by the police on 29 th March 2023. He submits that the trial has commenced and that by withdrawing the protection, the police have made the petitioner vulnerable to any threat by the accused. He submits that the accused persons are influential and would not leave a single opportunity to show their muscle power and to intimidate the petitioner.

(3.) Although, we had granted time to the learned APP on 6 th June 2023, the learned APP is not able to give satisfactory answers for withdrawing the police protection of the petitioner. She submits that the office of the Police Commissioner had although refused police protection to the petitioner, the Home Department has remitted back the same to the Police Commissioner for fresh consideration. She states that the said decision will take some time.