Disposed

Amar Nath Chaubey and Another v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Allahabad HC3 Feb 2021WRIC/948/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Supreme Court reused a previous order to deal with a writ petition by witnesses regarding security withdrawal. After recording fresh instructions from the police confirming security provision, the Court disposed of the petition noting the grievance was redressed.

What did the court decide?

None granted on merits; petition disposed of after recording instructions showing grievance redressed.

Amar Nath Chaubey and Another Vs… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 21

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 948 of 2021 Petitioner :- Amar Nath Chaubey and another Respondent :- State Of U.P. and 5 others Counsel for Petitioner :- Upendra Upadhyay Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶3

Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J. Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J.

¶4

The matter was taken up on 22.1.2021 and on the said date, the Court had proceeded to pass a detailed order, which reads as under:-

¶5

"Heard Shri Upendra Upadhyay, learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri B.B. Pandey, learned Chief Standing Counsel for the State respondents.

¶6

The present writ petition has been filed with the prayer to command the respondent no.1 and 2 to pass appropriate order for providing adequate security/gunner to the petitioners as a prime witnesses of Case Crime no.378/2015 under Section 147, 148, 149, 302, 120-B IPC registered at PS Chaubey Pur, District Varanasi.

¶7

Both the petitioners are witnesses in case Criminal Case no.378/2015 under Section 302, 147, 148, 149, 120-B IPC, PS Chaubey Pur, District Varanasi. Initially the petitioners were accorded security by an order dated 05.03.2018 passed by the Director General of Police-respondent no.2 upon perception of threat and life to the witnesses of the aforesaid case. Thereafter the security provided to the petitioners has been withdrawn by an order dated 25.10.2018. Aggrieved with the same, the petitioners have approached this Court by preferring Criminal Misc. Writ Petition no.35713 of 2018, which was disposed of vide order dated 14.12.2018 with following observations:-

¶8

"Heard Sri O. P. Singh, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Upendra Upadhyay, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶9

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners with a prayer to :-

¶10

(i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus, commanding the respondents specially the respondent no. 2 to provide adequate security/gunners to the petitioners during pendency of trial of Case Crime No. 378 of 2015 under Section 302, 147, 148, 149, 120-B I.P.C., P.S.Chaubey Pur, District- Varanasi, pending in the court of Special Judge, Anti Corruption-I, Varanasi, within a short stipulated period.

¶11

(ii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus, commanding the respondents specially the respondent no. 2 to pass appropriate orders regarding continuance of earlier security provided to the petitioners considering the threat of their lives and liberty within a short stipulated period.

¶12

(iii) issue any other writ, order or direction in any other suitable nature

¶13

which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case.

¶14

(iv) award the cost of the instant writ petition in favour of the petitioners.

¶15

It is contended by Sri O. P. Singh, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners that the petitioners are the witnesses in Case Crime No. 378 of 2015 u/s 302, 147, 148, 149, 120-B I.P.C., P.S.- Chaubey Pur, DistrictVaranasi. They were provided security guards by order dated 05.03.2018 passed by the respondent no. 2, Director General of Police, upon perception of threat to their lives at the hands of the accused in the aforesaid case. He next submitted that although the aforesaid order dated 05.03.2018 passed by the respondent no. 2 did not contain any stipulation that the security guards were being provided to the petitioners for a period of six months but the respondent no. 3 erroneously withdrew the security guards provided to the petitioners by order dated 25.10.2018, copy whereof has been brought on record as Annexure No. 8 to the writ petition, upon a wholly erroneous premise that the security guards were provided to the petitioners for a fixed period of six months. He lastly submitted that in view of the above, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent no. 2 to provide security guards to the petitioners forthwith.

¶16

Per contra Sri A. K. Sand, learned A.G.A.-I submitted that the petitioners do not have a vested right to insist on being provided the security guards. However, he has not been able to invite our attention to anything in the order dated 05.03.2018 passed by the respondent no. 2 which may indicate that the security guards were provided to the petitioners for a limited period. He further placed reliance on the judgement dated 05.12.2018 rendered by the Apex Court in Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 156 of 2016 (Mahender Chawla & Ors. Versus Union of India & Ors.).

¶17

In view of the above, without expressing any opinion on the merits, we dispose of this writ petition with liberty to the petitioners to file a fresh representation before the respondent no. 2 with the same prayer which has been made by them in this writ petition along with the certified copy of this order.

¶18

In case any such representation is filed by the petitioners before the respondent no. 2 within a period of three weeks from today, he shall decide the same in accordance with law keeping in view the prevailing Government Orders and the judgement dated 05.12.2018 rendered by the Apex Court in Mahender Chawla & Ors. (supra) by a speaking and reasoned order as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of filing of the representation by the petitioners before him."

¶19

It appears that in response to the aforesaid order, the petitioners have approached to the Authority concerned and security has been provided to the petitioners but subsequently in the month of December 2020, the security was again been withdrawn without assigning any reason.

¶20

Shri Upendra Upadhyay, learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on the judgement passed by Hon'ble the Apex Court in Special Leave to Appeal no.6951/2018 arising out of impugned judgement and order dated 17.05.2018 passed in CRLMW no.18812/2017 (Amar Nath

¶21

Chaubey vs. Union of India and others) passed by this Court. For ready reference, the operative portion of the said judgement is reproduced as under:-

¶22

"10. The trial is stated to have commenced against the charge sheeted accused, and the informant summoned to give evidence. In the facts of the case, we direct that further trial shall remain stayed. The closure reports dated 02.09.2018, 17.12.2018 culminating in the report dated 30.01.2019 are partly set aside insofar as the non-charge sheeted accused are concerned only. Those already charge sheeted, calls for no interference.

¶23

We hereby appoint Shri Satyarth Anirudh Pankaj, I.P.S. as the senior officer, State of Uttar Pradesh to carry out further investigation in the matter through a team of competent officers to be selected by him of his own choice. The State shall ensure the availability of such officers. The investigation must be concluded within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, unless extension is required, and the final report be placed before this Court. The Director General of Police, Uttar Pradesh shall do the needful."

¶24

In this backdrop, Shri Upadyay, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the trial is going on in the matter and on account of pressure exerted by the respondent no.6, who belongs to political background, the security of the petitioners is withdrawn.

¶25

In the facts and circumstances of the case, before proceeding in the matter, it would be appropriate, let proper instructions may be obtained in the matter.

¶26

Shri Bipin Bihari Pandey, learned Chief Standing Counsel is directed to obtain necessary instructions in the matter on or before the next date fixed in the matter.

¶27

Put up this matter as fresh on 03.02.2021."

¶28

Today, when the matter is taken up, Shri Bipin Bihari Pandey, learned Chief Standing Counsel has placed on record the instructions dated 02.2.2021 sent by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Varanasi, wherein it has been indicated that the security has been provided to the petitioner. The instruction is taken on record.

¶29

In view of the categorical instruction, we are of the opinion that the grievance of the petitioner has been redressed.

¶30

Accordingly, the present writ petition is disposed of.

¶31

Order Date :- 3.2.2021 RKP

Amar Nath Chaubey and Another v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amar Nath Chaubey and Another v. State of U.P. and 5 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

Jitendra Kumar Maurya Vs Smt. Moni Maurya

Shravan Kumar and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Pushpa Tiwari Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Tej Singh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Smt.Prakasho Devi and 4 Others Vs State of U P and 4 Others

Lakhan Singh Vs State of U.P. and 13 Others