Allahabad High Court
Gayur Hasan Son Of Sri Allah Noor vs The State Of U.P. Through Secretary, ... on 25 May, 2006
Bench: Imtiyaz Murtaza, Amar Saran
JUDGMENT
Imtiyaz Murtaza and Amar Saran, JJ.
1. This writ petition has been filed by Gayur Hasan, who is informant in case Crime No. 289 of 2005, under Sections 147, 149, 302, 323 and 504 IPC PS Babari, District Muzaffarnagar, in which respondent No. 4, Meharban was an accused along with four others for the murder of the petitioner's younger brother, Manzoor Hasan, on 14.10.2005 at 6.45 am. Another brother of the petitioner, Zakir. had received injuries in this case. It was pointed out in this petition that Meharban had not been arrested in spite of his involvement in this case under Section 302 IPC and, in fact, he was provided with a security guard. The petitioner, therefore, prays for withdrawal of the security guard provided to respondent No. 4 and for his arrest by means of this writ petition.
2. Two counter affidavits have been filed, one by Meraj Ahmad Khan, Inspector, CBCID, (who is now investigating the case) and Anr. by Ganga Sharan. ASI. PS Babari. The counter affidavit by Meraj Khan mentions that investigation was transferred lo CBCID, Meerut, by on.k:rs ol the State Government dated 25.11.2005, who started the investigation of the case on 5 12.2005, and submitted charge-sheet against the four other accused, namely, Gulab, Mehboob, Habibuddm and Jamiluddin on 9.1.2006. However, the investigation against respondent No. 4 was kept pending and on 1.3.2006 the State Government again transferred the investigation to CIS of CBCID. Lucknow, and the present investigating officer was handed over the investigation on 25 3 2006 The investigating officer further slates that thereafter he has been examining and verifying the correctness of the statements recorded by the civil police and CBCID, Meenit, and that he has received 35 affidavits in favour of the accused which were filed before the CJM, Muzaffarnagar and winch were forwarded to him by the DO, CBCID, Lucknow.
3. Presumably, this long-winded explanation has been given for explaining the extraordinary tardiness in arresting respondent No. 4 and for not submitting a charge-sheet against him.
4. It has been mentioned by the petitioner in the writ petition that respondent No. 4 is an ex-pradhan, who wields influence in the ruling party. This claim of the petitioner appears to be buttressed by the fact that in spite of the implication of respondent No. 4 in a case under Section 302 IPC, in which there was an injured witness, he has been provided a security guard at State's expenses and this averment in paragraph 16 of the writ petition has not been specifically denied in the aforementioned two counter affidavits. The counter affidavit of Meraj Khan, the present investigating officer of CBCID, Lucknow, states that he has no information with regard to the provision of security to respondent no 4. With the other counter affidavit of Ganga Sharan, ASI of PS Babari, District Muzaffarnagar a letter of the SSP, Muzaffarnagar, dated 9.5.2006 has been annexed which mentions that a fax message was received from Secretary to the Chief Minister dated 19.11.2005 granting a gunner to respondent No. 4 for a period of 6 months at State's expense with effect from 15 12.2005. It further mentions that the District Committee had reported on 29.11.2005 that it was not recommending the grant of a gunner and that on 9.4.2006 again a letter was sent that there was no threat perception to the life of respondent No. 4 and that no recommendation had been made for providing him a security guard But still no orders withdrawing the gunner had been received from the State Government.
5. This is an extremely shocking state of affairs. In a Government Order dated 19.2.1996 it has been noted that providing gunners, shadows, and guards to persons with criminal antecedents on the one hand reflects adversely on the reputation of the Government and administration, and on the other hand it gives encouragement to criminals.
6. A subsequent Government Order dated 25.4.2001 provides in Clause 10 that ordinarily no such person will be provided with security, who is engaged in criminal activities and which may result in misuse of the privilege. The said clause reads as follows:
**lkekU;r% ,sls fdlh O;fDr;ksa dks lqj{kk O;oLFkk ugha nh tk; tks vkijkf/kd fd;k&dykiksa esa fyIr gksa ,oa ftUgsa lqj{kk O;oLFkk fn;s tkus ls mlds nq:I;ksx dh lEHkkouk gks**
7. In spite of the clear and categorical restriction imposed by the Government Order security has been provided to the respondent No. 4 in the present case.
8. The said Government Order dated 25.4.2001 further provides inter alia that ordinarily in place of a uniformed gunner, only a trained shadow armed with revolver/pistol will be provided. A uniformed gunner may only be provided to high officials, viz. Hon'ble Ministers, High Court Judges, M Ps and M.L.As for special reasons.
9. For estimating the appropriateness and the risk to life for provision of a gunner/shadow, a committee headed by the District Magistrate wherein the S.S.P/S.P, Dy.S.P/ Inspector L.I.U were to be members was required to be constituted.
10. M.Ps. and M.L.As are to be provided with one security personnel free of cost and when considered appropriate by the committee an additional plain clothes security person may be provided on 25 per cent payment. Retired M.P.s, MLAs could be provided one security person at 10 per cent cost when considered appropriate. State Chairpersons of public corporations, Chairpersons of Zila Panchayats, Nagar Prainukhs and Vice Chancellors may be provided with one security person each at 10 per cent cost. (However so far as Chairpersons of Zila Panchayats was concerned the requirement for 10 percent cost for a security person has been done away with by a G.O. dated 16.6.2004)
11. For other persons according to need, on the recommendation of the district level committee, one security person could be provided at 100 per cent cost. In cases of heinous crimes, pairokars and witnesses may be provided security subject to the approval and control of the committee. On the recommendation of the district level committee, the S.S.P/S.P may provide security for one month and the period can be further extended in one month blocks for a total period of three months. For any further extension of the period the recommendation of the district level committee needs the approval of the State Government.
12. There has to be a monthly review by the District Magistrate and S.S.P/S.P and a three monthly review by the D.I.G of the region of the security provided to persons other than M.Ps, M.L.As, Ministers and High Court Judges and classified V.I.-Ps. The reports have to be submitted through the Director General Police to the State Government.
13. However, it appears that in gross violation of these directions, single or multiple gunners have been provided on long term basis to all and sundry at tax payers cost in clear violation of the criteria set out in the Government Order dated 25.4.2001.
14. In an earlier decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Criminal Misc, Writ Petition No. 484 of 2002 (M.A. Khan Chamna-Vs. State of U.P. and Ors.) decided on 1.4.2004, (in which one of us, Amar Saran J was a member) it has been observed:
There is no right of the petitioner to enjoy this privilege ad infinitum, it is regrettable that on flimsy grounds people exercise undue influence and manage to secure gunners and security at Male expense and at tax payers cost in fact acquisition of a gunner has begun to be treated as a status symbol. This practice must be1 brought to an end.
15. In a recent write-up in Times of India' (Lucknow Edition) dated 19.4.06. titled, "Small-timers gunning for security cover in U.P. " it was pointed out that because of the demand for security by petty politicians and other ineligible persons, there is dearth of manpower for manning our police stations, resulting in discounting of general policing and it is the public who has to bear the brunt of the shortfall Ironically according to the columnist they are people's representatives who are seeking protection and "those whom they are supposed to serve are left at the mercy of god." We wonder whether that protection is needed from the unserved people themselves. According to the article the coterie of VIP politicians who were given X, Y or Z class security has increased from 30 last year to 70 in the current year. 37 personnel and additional expenditure on other infrastructure is required for providing security to a single 'Z' category politician.
16. In this view of the matter we direct that the gunner to provided to Respondent No. 4 be withdrawn with immediate effect, in case he has not already been withdrawn. The present investigating officer is also directed to conclude the investigation against the Respondent No. 4 forthwith and lo take steps for his arrest if needed.
17. We further direct the Principal Secretary (Home), Government of U.P., Respondent No. 1, to submit a report to this Court which should also contain a table indicating the number of persons, who have been provided security in the last one year, the reasons for security given in each case, the period for which security was given, whether any payment has been taken for providing security if required as per the GO for one or more security personnel, the basis for providing additional security, whether there have been periodical reviews of the need for security by the committee as provided by the Government Order,
18. The number of persons who were involved in criminal cases who were provided with security, and the shortfall in number of police personnel required for manning police stations and for other duties may also be indicated in the counter-affidavit of the State. It shall also mention steps to be taken by the government for reduction of provision of unnecessary security, and henceforth we direct that the district level committee or the S.S.Ps/S.Ps mention reasons in their orders for providing security, so that the Court may be in a position to evaluate whether the provision of security in a particular case was justified and also in accordance with the letter and spirit of the Government Orders. The relevant Government Orders dealing with the subject of the provision of gunners and other security personnel may also be annexed with the Counter-affidavit.
19. Finally we must put in a word of appreciation for the Advocate General who on our short notice during the course of hearing of this petition appeared in our Court to render effective assistance to us. He promises to look into the matter in greater depth and to see that the issue is addressed in proper perspective by the State Government, and to again address the Court on the next date of hearing.
20. Office is directed to communicate this order to the Principal Secretary (Home), Respondent No. 1, and to the Investigating officer, CIS, CB.CID, Lucknow within a week. Copy of the order may be furnished to the learned G.A. within 24 hours.
21. List this case on 12.7.06 for further orders.