Disposed

Neeta Devi and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC19 Dec 2019CRLP/24992/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single-bench order quashed a petition seeking security for victims in an IPC/POCSO/SC/ST Act case. The court accepted assurances from the Circle Officer and Advocate General that protection measures aligned with the Supreme Court's Witness Protection Scheme, 2018, would be implemented without requiring further orders.

What did the court decide?

Assurance of full protection per Witness Protection Scheme, 2018; no further orders required.

Neeta Devi and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3… — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

At 2.00 PM

¶2

Court No. - 43

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 24992 of 2019

¶4

Petitioner :- Neeta Devi And 3 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rafiuddin Ansari Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Pankaj Naqvi,J. Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.

¶6

Pursuant to the earlier order, Dr. Krishan Gopal Singh, Circle Officer is present.

¶7

Heard Sri Rafiuddin Ansari, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri S.R. Pandey, the learned A.G.A.

¶8

This writ petition has been filed, seeking a writ of mandamus, directing the respondent concerned, to provide security/protection to the petitioners and their family members of Case Crime No. 314 of 2019 under Sections 376(2)(i), 376D, 354(Ga), 506, 286 IPC, Section 3(2)(v), 3(1)(xii) of SC/ST Act, Section 3/4 Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and Section 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1932, P.S. Sarai Akil, District Kaushambi during the pendency of the investigation of the aforesaid case.

¶9

We heard petitioner no. 1 (mother of victim/petitioner no. 3) in person, identified by her counsel. She stated that except for sporadic visit of the police in the morning and evening, there is no constant vigil at her house. She further stated that even on dates fixed before the trial court, the petitioners have to commute in a vehicle arranged by them exposing themselves to the risk from the accused.

¶10

The Apex Court in Mahender Chawla and others Vs. Union of India & others (Writ Petiton (Criminal) No. 156 of 2016 decided on 5.12.2018) while formulating a Witness Protection Scheme, 2018, to be the law under Article 141/142 of the Constitution of India, till its enactment of a suitable Parliamentary / State legislation, provided in paragraph 25(7) as under:

¶11

"25. At this stage, we reproduce Witness Protection Scheme, 2018 as filed, in its entirety......................

¶12

7. TYPES OF PROTECTION MEASURES:

¶13

The witness protection measures ordered shall be proportionate to the threat and shall be for a specific duration not exceeding three

¶14

months at a time.

¶15

They may include:

¶16

(a) Ensuring that witness and accused do not come face to face during investigation or trial;

¶17

(b) Monitoring of mail and telephone calls;

¶18

(c) Arrangement with the telephone company to change the witness's telephone number or assign him or her an unlisted telephone number;

¶19

(d) Installation of security devices in the witness's home such as security doors, CCTV, alarms, fencing etc;

¶20

(e) Concealment of identity of the witness by referring to him/her with the changed name or alphabet;

¶21

(f) Emergency contact persons for the witness;

¶22

(g) Close protection, regular patrolling around the witness's house;

¶23

(h) Temporary change of residence to a relative's house or a nearby town;

¶24

(i) Escort to and from the court and provision of Government vehicle or a State funded conveyance for the date of hearing;

¶25

(j) Holding of in-camera trials;

¶26

(k) Allowing a support person to remain present during recording of statement and deposition;

¶27

(l) Usage of specially designed vulnerable witness court rooms which have special arrangements like live video links, one way mirrors and screens apart from separate passages for witnesses and accused, with option to modify the image of face of the witness and to modify the audio feed of the witness' voice, so that he/she is not identifiable;

¶28

(m) Ensuring expeditious recording of deposition during trial on day to day basis without adjournments;

¶29

(n) Awarding time to time periodical financial aids/grants to the witness from Witness Protection Fund for the purpose of re-location, sustenance or starting a new vocation/profession, if desired;

¶30

(o) Any other form of protection measures considered necessary."

¶31

The Circle Officer, present, assured the Court that henceforth petitioner nos. 1 to 3 shall be given full protection in letter and spirit as contemplated in the Scheme of 2018, also authenticated by Sri S.R. Pandey, the learned AGA. We have no reasons to disbelieve them.

¶32

No further orders are required at this stage.

¶33

This petition is disposed of in the light of above directions.

¶34

Order Date :- 19.12.2019 AKK

Neeta Devi and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Neeta Devi and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Arti and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Shivangi Nishad Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Smt. Pooja and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Daman Singh (Minor) Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Vijeet Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Smt. Rukhsar Khatoon and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others