Disposed

Prem Prakash v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. and Others

Allahabad HC30 Jul 2025CRLP/4214/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

An advocate sought mandamus for State security after his personal security officer was withdrawn. The court held he was not covered by the 2014 Government Order meant for VIPs and directed that he may apply to the trial court under the Witness Protection Scheme.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of; petitioner permitted to seek protection via Witness Protection Scheme through trial court.

Prem Prakash Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy… — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:44139-DB

¶2

Court No. - 9

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 4214 of 2025

¶4

Petitioner :- Prem Prakash Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ved Prakash Yadav,Girjesh Kumar Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J. Hon'ble Brij Raj Singh,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.G.A.

¶7

This petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayer :-

¶8

"Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to provide appropriate security at Government expenses to the petitioner forthwith in furtherance of the representation dated 30.4.2025 moved by the petitioner in prescribed proformaI before the respondent no.4, which is contained as Annexure No.4 to this writ petition."

¶9

It has been submitted that the petitioner is an Advocate who is having an eminent threat to his life. His family has a long history of criminal cases in which the petitioner's father was brutally murdered on 29.4.1986. His elder brother was also murdered thereafter on 14.8.2014. He is a witness for the prosecution and the accused are trying to eliminate him as well. The petitioner preferred an application for security to be provided to him and thereafter personally met the Superintendent of Police, Sultanpur. He also filed writ petition before this Court namely Writ-C No.8832 of 2022.

¶10

The court vide its order dated 9.12.2022 directed the petitioner to make a fresh application to the Superintendent of Police, Sultnapur and to the District Magistrate, Sultanpur. Thereafter, the District Level Committee, Sultanpur provided security to the petitioner. Without any information, the Personal Security Officer of the petitioner was withdrawn on 6.3.2025. The petitioner filed an R.T.I. application for seeking the

¶11

reason for such withdrawal and he was told that he had been provided security by an oral order of the Superintendent of Police. Such security has also been withdrawn by an oral order because of huge shortage of the police personnels during the Maha Kumbh, Prayagraj, 2025.

¶12

It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is still facing threat to his life and he has made a representation to the District Magistrate, Sultanpur and Superintendent of Police, Sultanpur to the effect that he be given security in terms of Government Order dated 9.5.2014.

¶13

Learned A.G.A. has pointed out through the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents that Government Order dated 9.5.2014 is meant only for "Vishisht Mahanubhav/VIPs" and is not applicable in the case of the petitioner. He has also pointed out a report submitted by the SubInspector Shri Santosh Kumar Singh, Police Station Kotwali Nagar to the Superintendent of Police wherein it has been stated that insofar as three murders in the family of the petitioner are concerned, the petitioner may apply court concerned for witness under the Witness Protection Scheme and the trial court may thereafter pass an order to provide security to the petitioner during the time he appears to give his testimony in the said criminal cases.

¶14

If such a representation is made, the same shall be referred to the District Level Security Committee.

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioner initially insisted that he is covered under the Government Order dated 9.5.2014 and has pointed out paragraph 3 thereof. However, after having gone through the paragraph 3 of the said Govt. Order, we find that the case of the petitioner is not covered under the said Govt. Order as the subject of the order itself states that it is meant only for "Vishishta Mahanubhav/ VIPs".

¶16

However, this Court is of the opinion that in case the petitioner is facing any threat to his life, he may apply to the trial court concerned under the

¶17

Witness Protection Scheme and he may be provided security as per the policy framed in this regard by an appropriate order by the authorities concerned.

¶18

In view of the above, the writ petition stands disposed of.

¶19

Order Date :- 30.7.2025

¶20

Shukla

¶21

Digitally signed by :- ASHUTOSH KUMAR SHUKLA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Prem Prakash v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prem Prakash v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Awadhesh Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and Others

Ram Sahaj and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and 3 Others

Asheesh Kumar and Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Others

Smt. Supriya Verma and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and 3 Others

Pushpa Tiwari and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Others

Muskan Alias Muskan Devi and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Others