Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Somesh Chaurasia vs State Of M.P. on 23 February, 2024
Author: Surya Kant
Bench: Surya Kant
1
ITEM NO.24 COURT NO.4 SECTION X
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Writ Petition(s)(Criminal) No(s).467/2023
SOMESH CHAURASIA Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
STATE OF M.P. & ANR. Respondent(s)
(FOR ADMISSION and IA No.194164/2023-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.)
Date : 23-02-2024 This petition was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.V. VISWANATHAN
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Varun Thakur, Adv.
Ms. Shraddha Saran, Adv.
Mr. Brajesh Pandey, Adv.
Mr. Varinder Kumar Sharma, AOR
For Respondent(s) Mr. Saurabh Mishra, A.A.G.
Mr. Sunny Choudhary, AOR
Mr. Jitendra Kumar Tripathi, Adv.
Mr. Karan Bishnoi, Adv.
Mr. Vikash Chandra Shukla, AOR
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
1. The instant Writ Petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution seeks a direction to the State of Madhya Pradesh and its police authorities to provide adequate safety and security to the petitioner and his family, who are stated to be victims and eyewitnesses to the brutal murder of the head of the petitioner’s family.
2. The unfortunate incident took place on 15.03.2019 when on Signature Not Verified account of alleged political rivalry, the petitioner’s father – Digitally signed by satish kumar yadav Date: 2024.02.28 Devendra Chaurasia was murdered. FIR No.143/2019 was registered at 18:26:50 IST Reason:
Police Station Hata, District Damoh. The petitioner and his family members were provided police protection as there was a threat to 2 their life and property at the hands of the accused persons. Some of the accused, in fact, were not even arrested and have been absconding. The security cover provided to the petitioner and his family members was later on abruptly withdrawn/reduced, which prompted the petitioner to approach this Court.
3. On 19.01.2024, the Director General of Police, Madhya Pradesh, and the Superintendent of Police, District Damoh, were directed to restore the security cover that was provided to the petitioner and his family members in the year 2019.
4. Compliance affidavits have been filed to the effect that the security cover has now been restored. Learned counsel for the petitioner also states that the security cover that was provided to the petitioner and his family members in 2019 has now been restored. We, thus, do not deem it necessary to keep this petition pending and dispose of the same with the following directions:
(i) The security cover provided to the petitioner and his family members shall not be withdrawn without prior permission of this Court, and in any case, till the trial is concluded.
(ii) Even after the trial is concluded, the threat perception shall be evaluated, and if it is found that the security cover can be scaled down, it will be done after obtaining prior permission of this Court.
(iii) Besides life and liberty, the property of the petitioner and his family members shall also be protected from the hands of the accused persons or their associates.
(iv) The Superintendent of Police, Damoh, is directed to assess the threat perception of any other witness, and if so required, adequate security shall be provided to such witness till the deposition/cross-examination is complete.
(v) The petitioner shall also be at liberty to furnish details of such a witness to the Superintendent of Police, Damoh and on doing so, the threat perception shall be immediately addressed and needful shall be done as directed above.3
5. The Trial Court shall make an endeavour to conclude the trial expeditiously.
6. As a sequel to the above, the pending interlocutory application stands disposed of.
(SATISH KUMAR YADAV) (PREETHI T.C.) DEPUTY REGISTRAR COURT MASTER (NSH)