Disposed

Avanish Kumar Shukla v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC1 Nov 2022WRIC/29925/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The single-judge bench directed respondent authorities to provide appropriate security to the petitioner within a week, as he is an eyewitness to a murder where an accused was on bail, pending recording of his statement in a pending trial.

What did the court decide?

Respondents 2, 3 and 4 are directed to ensure the petitioner is provided appropriate security within a week till recording of his statement.

Avanish Kumar Shukla Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 29

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 29925 of 2022

¶3

Petitioner :- Avanish Kumar Shukla Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Alok Krishan Tripathi,Aditya Kumar Kushwaha Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Manoj Misra,J. Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J.

¶5

Supplementary-affidavit has been filed today, which is taken on record.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner; the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents and have perused the record.

¶7

The prayer in this petition is to direct the respondents to accord protection/security to the petitioner till completion of trial arising out of Case Crime No. 32 of 2016, P.S. Civil Lines, District Prayagraj.

¶8

The case of the petitioner is that his uncle was murdered in the night of 17/18.01.2016 in connection with which Jairaj Singh, Abhishek Mayank Rastogi alias Anshu, Ajay Kumar Mishra, Arun Kumar Talan and Indiwar Pandey have been charge sheeted giving rise to a sessions trial pending in the Court of ADJ-IX (MP/MLA Court) at Allahabad. It is alleged that the statement of the petitioner, who is an eye-witness, has not yet been recorded and one of the accused is on bail and has also threatened the petitioner.

¶9

On 19.10.2022, we had required the learned Standing Counsel to seek instructions in the matter.

¶10

Learned Standing Counsel has obtained written instructions from the Senior Superintendent of Police, Prayagraj as per which the uncle of the petitioner was murdered on 18.01.2016 giving rise to Case Crime No. 32 of 2016 in which the persons named above have been made accused and a sessions trial is pending in the Court of ADJ-IX (MP/MLA Court) at Allahabad. It is also admitted in the instructions that the petitioner is an eye-witness of the incident. The instructions also admit that one of the accused, namely, Jairaj Singh, has been granted bail.

¶11

The written instructions state that the petitioner has not yet applied for security.

¶12

We notice from the record that the petitioner had earlier also approached this Court by filing Writ C No. 20565 of 2021 for

¶13

grant of security as being a witness to a crime and that petition was disposed off by requiring the Chairman of the District Security Committee, Allahabad to take a decision on the representation of the petitioner. We also notice from the record that on 19.10.2021, pursuant to the direction dated 13.09.2021 in Writ C No. 20565 of 2021, a decision was taken to deny security on the ground that the petitioner is an arms licensee having a revolver and rifle, and that there is no threat perception.

¶14

From the written instructions, which have been passed on to the Court, it appears that the petitioner had lodged a complaint in respect of extension of threat to him which has been registered as Case Crime No. 627 of 2022 on 31.08.2022.

¶15

In view whereof, keeping in mind that the petitioner is an eyewitness; that one of the accused of the case is on bail; that the petitioner has lodged another complaint on 31.08.2022 in respect of extension of threat; and that the statement of the petitioner, as a witness, is yet to be recorded in the trial, we deem it appropriate to dispose off this petition by requiring the respondents 2, 3 and 4 to ensure that the petitioner is provided appropriate security within a week from today.

¶16

It is made clear that this security shall be up to the recording of the statement of the petitioner in the sessions trial. Thereafter, there shall be a fresh review whether security is to be continued or not.

¶17

The petition is disposed off .

¶18

The written instructions provided by the learned Standing Counsel shall be retained on the record.

¶19

Order Date :- 1.11.2022 Sunil Kr Tiwari

¶20

Digitally signed by SUNIL KUMAR TIWARI Date: 2022.11.04 10:15:02 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Avanish Kumar Shukla v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Avanish Kumar Shukla v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Virendra Maddhesiya and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Rahul Barnwal Vs State of U.P. and 8 Others

M/S Jay Maa Hp Gas Gramin Vitrak and Another Vs Union Of India and 3 Others

Farzan Ali Vs State of U P and 2 Others

Vishnu Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Sunil Mishra Vs State of U.P. and Another