Allahabad High Court
Sachin Yadav vs State Of U.P. And Another on 24 June, 2010
Author: Virendra Singh
Bench: Virendra Singh
Court No. - 40 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 21499 of 2010 Petitioner :- Sachin Yadav Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Another Petitioner Counsel :- Nikhil Kumar Respondent Counsel :- Govt Advocate Hon'ble Virendra Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned AGA for the State and perused the material on record.
This application u/s 482 Cr.P.C has been filed for the direction for providing security to the applicant till conclusion of criminal case no.20012 of 2006 State Vs. Satish and others pending in the Court of C.J.M, Ghaziabad and Sessions Trial no.1021 of 2007 (State Vs. Jogeshwar and others) pending in the Court of Additional District and Sessions Judge, F.T.C. No.6, Ghaziabad.
It is submitted on behalf of the applicant that by means of this application, the applicant is praying for quashing the order dated 25.5.2010 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge, F.T.C. No.6, Ghaziabad in Sessions Trial no.1021 of 2007 by which the learned Sessions Judge passed the order resting the security of the applicant on the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ghaziabad and forwarded the application of the applicant in this respect to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ghaziabad. The applicants further prayer is that the applicant may be provided security till the disposal of Sessions Trial in which the applicant is a witness. An FIR was registered by the wife of the applicant on 21.5.2006 for the occurrence in which the applicant was shot at by in-laws of the applicant and the applicant had sustained serious injuries. One of the FIR was also lodged by the applicant on 23.7.2006 for the occurrence of attack upon the applicant and his family members by the accused persons armed with country-made pistols. The complaint's wife had also filed a complaint dated 1.3.2008 at P.S. Kabir Nagar, Ghaziabad regarding threat extending by the in-laws of the applicant. Since Shashi Yadav, the wife of the applicant married with the applicant against the consent of her parents, the family members of applicant's in-laws in order to teach a lesson to the applicant, regularly making assault on the applicant and threatening. One habeas corpus petition against the applicant and his mother was also filed by the father-in-law of the applicant which was dismissed on 4.10.2005. After dismissal of that petition, the members of the family of the applicant's in-laws became more violent and extended more threat to the life of the applicant. Considering the entire facts and circumstances, the District Authorities provided one gunner for a period of two months and later on the trial Court considering the security of life and liberty of the applicant by the order dated 10.10.2007 extended security till conclusion of Sessions Trial. As per observations of this Court in the case of Gayur Hasan vide order dated 13.3.2007 in criminal writ petition no.5520 of 2006, where persons have appeared as witnesses and there are threats to their lives, they will need to apply for continuance of security every two months before the Court concerned and when the Court feels that security is still required to be provided to them because of continuing danger to their life, the security provided the same person shall continue.
In the light of aforesaid observations by this Court, the Additional District and Sessions Judge, F.T.C. No.6, Ghaziabad before whom the Sessions Trial was pending, modified order dated 10.10.2007 to the extent that the applicant shall file an application after every two months for extension of his security. Thus the security was extended from time to time regularly for which he was regularly depositing payment in the Government treasury. On 1.3.2008, the accused persons of Sessions Trial no.1021 of 2007 again forcibly entered into the house of the applicant and extended threat to the applicant and the eye witnesses of the case and in this regard Bhagwan Yadav, the witness lodged the complaint to the S.S.P, Ghaziabad on 3.3.2008. Despite the fact that the security provided to the applicant was extended from time to tome, in the month of May, 2010, the Trial Court in a mechanical manner passed the order directing to put the application of applicant for security before the S.S.P, Ghaziabad which was moved by the applicant to the learned Lower Court.
Learned AGA contended that there is no illegality in the order passed by the learned Lower Court thereby forwarding the application of the applicant for providing the security to the applicant, to the S.S.P, Ghaziabad as the matter of security as to whether the security to be provided or not is in the domain of the authorities of administration., as per law laid down by this Court in Gayur Hasan and thus the learned Lower Court committed no error.
I have gone throught he facts and circumstances of the case, there is no dispute on this point that looking into the threat to the life of the applicant, who is the victim and injured in the Sessions Trial pending before the learned Lower Court, the security was being provided by the learned Lower Court.
By way of the impugned order, the learned Lower Court seems to have referred the application for security of the applicant to the SSP merely on the contentions of ADGC (Criminal) working in the court and without giving any opinion as to whether the security to the applicant is required or not for the purpose of trial pending in the court as was being extended by the lower court from time to time for the purpose of trial pending in the court. The Division Bench of this court on 27.02.2007 in the case of Gayur Hasan has opined that in such cases, the opinion of the trial court should be obtained as to whether according to trial courts further continuance of security to such person is warranted in each case. In the final decision of the aforesaid case of Gayur Hasan, the Division Bench of this Court reiterated it observing that various orders were passed from time to time in the matter and it is not necessary to refer all such orders at this stage to avoid bulkness. The impugned order in hand shows that the learned lower court did not exercise the power regarding the opinion of the court for providing security to the applicant which was earlier being exercised by the lower court and under the order of this court from time to time.
Therefore, I do find it expedient to quash the impugned order with the direction to the learned lower court to decide the application of the applicant afresh within one week from the date this order is produced before the lower court, thereby exercising the power to form an opinion as to whether the security to the applicant for the purpose of trial pending in the court is required as was the power in this regard being exercised by the court below from time to time and under the order of this court.
Thereofre, this application is allowed thereby directing the lower court accordingly.
Order Date :- 24.6.2010 Gaurav