Om Prakash Rai vs State Of U.P. Thru Secy. And 3 ...
2014 Latest Caselaw 500 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

AFR
 
Court No. - 39
 

 
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 6034 of 2014
 

 
Petitioner :- Om Prakash Rai
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Secy. And 3 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Vinod Kumar Rai,Manoj Kumar Singh
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 

 
Hon'ble Tarun Agarwala,J.

Hon'ble Rajan Roy,J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri Ravi Prakash Srivastava, the learned Standing Counsel.

The petitioner is an advocate in Sonebhadra. On 1.05.2012, the petitioner's son was murdered, in which the petitioner is an eye-witness. For this incident a first information report was lodged and upon investigation, charge-sheet was filed. A Special Operation Group (SOG) arrested certain persons on 30th September, 2012 and during interrogation, it was found that these persons were planning to kill the petitioner. Another first information report was lodged and based on this information, security was provided to the petitioner from October, 2012 which continued till December, 2013, when it was withdrawn. The petitioner being aggrieved by the withdrawal of the security has filed the present writ petition praying for restoration of the gunner facility, which was provided by way of security measure.

The petitioner contends that the threat perception is still existing and as per government orders issued from time to time, it is the obligation of the State to protect its citizens and provide security.

The State filed a counter affidavit admitting the averments made in the writ petition and submitted that as on date, security is provided to the petitioner to take him from his residence to the Civil Court and back. This new arrangement was however, denied by the petitioner in his rejoinder.

A supplementary affidavit has been filed by the petitioner intimating the Court that he possesses two weapons, namely, a double barrel gun and a revolver, which was given to him for his protection when the plan to kill him surfaced and became known to the police authorities.

The State Government for security reasons has also placed a sealed cover which the Court has perused, in which the State has indicated the reasons for withdrawal of the gunner facility.

We find from a perusal of the government order dated 25th April, 2001 that a security is provided as per the recommendation of the District Level Committee for a period of one month which can be extended for a maximum of three months and further extension could only be given by the State Government on specific recommendation being given by the District Level Committee. The government order further provides that a review of the matter would be taken by the committee on a monthly basis in order to review whether security is to be provided further considering the threat perception.

What constitutes the threat perception has not been indicated in the government order. A threat perception is, therefore, a question of fact which can only be assessed by the State Investigating Agencies and it is not the domain of the Court to consider whether a threat perception exists in favour of a particular person or not.

From a perusal of the Government Order of 2001, the Court further finds that the State Government has emphasized that no security should be provided to a person, who is indulging in criminal activities and against whom, it is feared that the provision of security to them could be misused.

In the light of aforesaid government order, this Court in Gayur Hasan Vs. State of U.P. and others 2009 (1) ACR 515 held:

"15. Moreover, irrespective of any reason whatsoever, if a person has indulged in criminal activities and thereby has enhanced perception of threat to his life and liberty, he himself is responsible for the same, and cannot look to the State to provide him separate security at the cost of common man when he himself is responsible for enhancing threat perception due to his anti-social activities. Whatever position an individual occupy in our democratic system, if he is engaged in anti social criminal activities, in our view, there is no justification to provide him security at the cost of tax payer society and common people of the State. His criminal activities are against the society. It is inconceivable that such a person shall be provided extra security at individual level to ensure that such activities at his level may continue with impunity. This in fact amounts to an encouragement to anti-social criminal elements to go ahead with such criminal activities and also enjoy an edge over his counter parts by obtaining State's security cover at the cost of common man."

We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel and considering the government order of 2001, we are in complete agreement with the observations made by a Division Bench of this Court in Gayur Hasan's case (supra). Threat to the life of such persons who are indulging in criminal activities is mainly on accounts of enmities and attacks on such persons who mainly seek revenge. Even though the State is under an obligation to provide security to its citizens and there is an obligation to protect them, nonetheless individual security can only be provided in exceptional circumstances. But where a person indulges in criminal activities and thereby enhances the threat to his life, in such a situation, the said person is alone responsible and therefore, the State in such a situation will not come forward and provide security. We are of the opinion that it is not desirable to provide personal security to such persons because such persons would threaten others and indulge in criminal activities unhindered with the aid of protection provided to them by State.

Recently in Nutan Thakur Vs. State of U.P. & Ors., in Writ Petition No. 6509 of 2013, a Division Bench of the Lucknow Bench of this Court, by an order dated 3rd March, 2014 held that security provided by the State to persons having criminal activities should be removed immediately and thereafter a review should be conducted by the State for providing security to those persons after considering objectively the evaluation of threat. The Court held:

"We, thus, provide that security to all such persons shall be removed within a period of ten days and thereafter review regarding threat perception may be conducted by the State Government at appropriate level within next fifteen days and depending upon the evaluation of threat perception in the manner provided herein above in this order, the State Government will consider for providing the security only if it is found that there is actual and real threat perception to the individuals concerned."

In the instant case, we find that initially there existed a threat perception in favour of the petitioner. The State provided him security which continued for a considerable period of time but from December 2013 onwards, the security was withdrawn for reasons disclosed in the sealed cover.

We have perused the contents indicated by the State in the sealed cover and for the reasons indicated therein, we are of the opinion that the State was justified in the facts and circumstances, in withdrawing the security.

Without divulging the details, we only observe that the petitioner was indulging in criminal activities and in the light of the government order of 2001 and the observations made in Gayur Hasan's case, we are of the opinion that it is not desirable to provide personal security to the petitioner.

A person who indulges in criminal activities is not entltied for the protection from the State. In Gayur Hasan's Case, the Court observed that there is one police man for every one thousand citizens. In such circumstances providing security personel for the purpose of providing individual security would be putting a common ordinary man at enhanced risk to their life and liberty at the cost of individual security which is not the obligation of the State.

As per the government orders and decisions of this Court, threat perception is required to be reviewed periodically. What particular category of security cover or its upgradation or downgradation, is essentially the domain of the concerned Government Agencies and it is not a matter in which the Court should interfere. In the light of the aforesaid, we find that the authorities were justified in withdrawing the security.

We also find that the respondents were justified in downgrading the security and providing security only for the purpose of taking the petitioner from his residence to the Court and back. In the light of the aforesaid, we do not find any reason to interfere in the action of the State.

Writ petition accordingly fails and is dismissed.

We also direct the District Level Committee to review the threat perception on a month to month basis and thereafter take further action of providing security.

The report which was provided to us in a sealed cover which the Court has perused, will be kept in the sealed cover and shall become part of the record.

 
Order Date :- 3.4.2014
 
Arun K. Singh
 
                               (Rajan Roy,J.)          (Tarun Agarwala,J.)