Narendra Kumar Tiwari vs State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 9104 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

?Court No. - 3
 

 
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 1924 of 2023
 

 
Petitioner :- Narendra Kumar Tiwari
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Home Affairs, Govt. Of U.P. Lko. And Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Rohit Kumar Tripathi,Rama Soni
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 

 
Hon'ble Rajan Roy,J.

Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J.

Supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for the petitioner is taken on record.

The petitioner has filed his petition challenging the order passed by the Superintendent of Police, District Gonda dated 03.10.2022 requiring him to deposit Rs. 1,16,347/- for providing a Gunner for one month.

Contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that he is the informant and witness in Sessions Trial No. 268/2019 (FIR No. 0393/2019) under Section 304 IPC, Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Gonda, therefore, he is entitled for protection.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed before this Court the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court dated 05.12.2018 rendered in Writ Petition (Criminal) No.156 of 2016 (Mahender Chawla & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors.) wherein Hon'ble the Supreme Court has considered the Witness Protection Scheme, 2018 extensively and has issued certain directions for its strict compliance.

Having perused the said judgment, we are of the opinion that the petitioner should file an application under the said Scheme before the Member Secretary of the Competent Authority, which is a Standing Committee, headed by the District and Sessions Judge of which head of the Police in the District is a Member and head of the prosecution in the District is its Member Secretary. This should be done at the earliest. As soon as the application is received by the Committee, it shall process the same and take a decision with regard to the provision of Security to the petitioner, as per the said Scheme, say within a period of one month.

We find that the impugned order has not been passed by the Superintendent of Police under the Scheme, 2018 but independent of it, obviously because the petitioner had not applied under the Scheme. Nevertheless, the Superintendent of Police, once he found that the petitioner was a witness in a criminal case, could have forwarded the matter to the concerned Standing Committee, instead of demanding such a huge amount from the petitioner, which he is unable to pay. The Scheme does not contemplate payment of any money by any witness.

At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner says that the accused are on bail and there is threat to his life, therefore, it is provided that the Superintendent of Police shall, till such decision is taken by the Standing Committee, ensure adequate security/protection to the petitioner and if any costs are to be incurred in this regard, the same shall be raised and realized from the State Protection Witness Fund, mentioned in para 4 of the said Scheme. The Superintendent of Police shall provide such security immediately, subject to final decision by the Standing Committee. The District Judge, Gonda shall also ensure prompt decision.

In view of the aforesaid observation/direction, the present writ petition is disposed of.

Sri Manish Mishra, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel is directed to communicate this order to the Superintendent of Police, Gonda.

Order Date :- 28.3.2023

Nitesh