SHAIKH GOUS KURSHID AHMED Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule, rule returnable forthwith. By consent of the parties, the appeal is taken up for final hearing. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioners prayed for issuance of writ of mandamus directing respondent No. 2, Union of India, to provide them personal security from CISF or the CRPF or in the alternative prayed for issuance of appropriate orders directing above agencies to provide security to the petitioners.

(2.) Thus, the limited relief of petitioners is to provide security to them. It is alleged that petitioner No. 1 is witness No. 92 while petitioner No. 2 is witness No. 94 in Sessions Case No. 771/2010, which came to be decided by the Sessions Court, Pune by its judgment and order dated 18th April, 2013, which is commonly known as "German Bakery Blast Case". Vide this judgment, accused Mirza Himayat Baig is convicted and is sentenced to death. This judgment is challenged by the accused by filing Criminal Appeal No. 755 of 2013 and is pending for adjudication before this Court along with Criminal Confirmation Case No. 4 of 2013 filed by the State. In the Criminal Appeal, both the petitioners had filed Intervention Application Nos. 1578 of 2013 and 1579 of 2013 respectively, inter alia praying for directions of this Court for (i) declaring the statement/evidence of the petitioners in the Sessions Case No. 771/2010 to have been made by coercion, pressure and against the will of the petitioners; (ii) discarding the statement/evidence of the petitioners; (iv) recording the statement/evidence of the petitioners afresh and for conducting fresh examination of the petitioners; (iv) appointing an independent central agency/force for ensuring protection, safety and rehabilitation of the petitioners and directing such agency/force so appointed to submit timely reports of the same to the Court or to a judicial panel specifically constructed by the Court; and (v) for initiation of appropriate legal proceedings against the erring officers of the Anti Terrorists Squad who have indulged in the illegal acts as stated therein and who continue to commit these acts of intimidation and extortion against the petitioners.

(3.) According to petitioners, vide order dated 5th December, 2013 passed in the Intervention Applications, the petitioners were permitted to adopt remedies available to them under the law seeking police protection and thus filed the present petition seeking directions from this Court against respondent No. 1 to ensure that the petitioners and their family members are not threatened, coerced, intimated by the officials of respondent No. 1/Anti Terrorist Squad in any manner, and directions to respondent No. 2 to provide security to the petitioners through a central agency like the CISF or any other. This petition has also been filed to bring on record before this Court the acts of intimidation and threats that the officers of the ATS have indulged during the course of investigation and trial in Sessions Case No. 771 of 2010 and to date and in spite of the petitioners being before this Court.