Amit Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:32964 )

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

W.P (Cr.) No. 328 of 2025

Amit Singh, aged about 50 years, son of Late Lakhan Prasad, resident of Type 3/10, New Housing Colony, near Durga Puja Maidan, Adityapur-1, Post Adityapur, Police Station Adityapur, District Seraikella-Kharsawan

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Jharkhand

¶7

The Director General of Police, Jharkhand officiating from Police Headquarters, Dhurwa, Post Dhurwa, Police Station Dhurwa, District Ranchi

¶8

The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Kolhan Circle, officiating from D.I.G. House, Kolhan, Post Chaibasa, Police Station Chaibasa, District West Singhbhum

¶9

The Superintendent of Police, Seraikella Kharsawan, officiating from S.P. Office, Seraikella Kharsawan, Post Seraikella, Police Station Seraikella, District Seraikella-Kharsawan

¶10

The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Special Branch, Seraikella Kharsawan, officiating from S.P. Office, Seraikella Kharsawan, Post Seraikella, Police Station Seraikella, District Seraikella-Kharsawan

¶11

The Officer-in-Charge, Adityapur Police Station, officiating from Adityapur, Post Adityapur, Police Station Adityapur, District Seraikella Kharsawan ----Respondents

¶12

---

¶13

CORAM: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ambuj Nath

¶14

¶15

For the Petitioner: Mr. Vikash Kumar, Advocate For the Resp.-State: Mr. Suraj Prakash, A.C to S.C-VII

¶16

¶17

06 / 04.11.2025 Petitioner has filed this writ application for quashing of the order dated 07.05.2024 (Annexure-3) passed by the Superintendent of Police, SeraikellaKharsawan (Respondent No. 4) whereby, the Superintendent of Police, Seraikella-Kharsawan has rejected the application of the petitioner for providing him extra bodyguard.

¶18

Petitioner is witness of Adityapur P.S. Case No. 91 of 2016 registered under sections 326, 307 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, section 25(1-A), 26 and 27 of Arms Act and section 3 / 4 of Explosive Substance Act in which Krishna Gope is an accused. Petitioner is also a witness in Adityapur P.S. Case No. 66 of 2016 which was registered against the accused Krishna Gope and others for committing murder of Deepak Munda, an aid of the petitioner.

¶19

It was submitted that the accused person in both the cases is the same. It was further submitted that the accused Krishna Gope is a hardcore criminal and

¶20

¶21

several cases have been registered against him. It was further submitted that one of the witnesses in Adityapur P.S. Case No. 91 of 2016 Sujay Nandi was also murdered by Krishna Gope. As such, petitioner is also apprehending threat to his life. It was further submitted that initially, two bodyguards were provided to the petitioner in light of the Witness Protection Scheme, 2018. However later on, one bodyguard was withdrawn. Being aggrieved, petitioner came to the High Court in W.P (Cr.) No. 404 of 2023. It has also been submitted that the bodyguard which has been provided to him is only for ten hours and rest of time, petitioner remains unprotected.

¶22

Attention has been drawn towards the provisions of Rule 7(g) of the Witness Protection Scheme 2018, which provides that witness shall be given adequate security and his house shall be under constant security cover by the police party. Vide order dated 19.08.2023 passed in W.P (Cr.) No. 404 of 2023, Coordinate Bench of this court had directed the Superintendent of Police, Seraikella-Kharsawan to take a decision on the prayer of the petitioner for providing extra bodyguard. Thereafter, report was called for from the Dy. S.P., Special Branch, Seraikella-Kharsawan in this matter. Dy. S.P., SeraikellaKharsawan has reported that some criminal activities were seen outside the house of the petitioner. He has also reported that there is grave danger to the life of the petitioner. As such, petitioner should be provided 24 hours security. Even after the report of the Dy. S.P., Special Branch, Seraikella-Kharsawan, the Superintendent of Police, Seraikella-Kharsawan did not provide him with second bodyguard.

¶23

It appears that there is grave danger to the life of the petitioner by hardened criminals, as would appear from the report of the Dy. S.P., Special Branch, Seraikella-Kharsawan. Accordingly, Superintendent of Police, Seraikella-Kharsawan is directed to provide extra bodyguard to the petitioner, so that he will be under police protection round the clock.

¶24

Accordingly, this writ application is allowed.

¶25

Pending I.A., if any, also stands disposed of.

¶26

(Ambuj Nath, J)

¶27

November 04, 2025

¶28

Ranjeet/ Uploaded

Amit Singh v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amit Singh v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vikash Tiwari Vs the State of Jharkhand

Appu Ebne Aziz Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Pappu Mandal Vs the State of Jharkhand

MD Irsad Alias MD Irshad Alias Irsad Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ghanshyam Das Alias Lathi Das Vs the State of Jharkhand

Mangalnath Chik Baraik Vs the State of Jharkhand