Sh. Jai Bhagwan Goel vs State & Ors.
2013 Latest Caselaw 4571 Del

*               THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                          W.P (Crl.) 1405/2009

                                           Date of Decision: 03.10.2013

SH. JAI BHAGWAN GOEL                                 ......PETITIONER

                           Through:     Mr.A.K.Singh, Advocate.

                                  Versus

STATE & ORS.                                      ......RESPONDENTS

                           Through:     Mr.Saleem Ahmed, Addl.
                                        Standing Counsel with Inspector
                                        Mangesh, P.S.Shahdra,
                                        Inspector Sharvan Kumar, PHQ,
                                        SI Dilip Kumar (Special Cell),
                                        SI Gaurav, P.S.Shahdra, ASI
                                        Rajender, P.S. Shahdra.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.L. MEHTA

M.L. MEHTA, J. (Oral)

1. The petitioner has filed the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ in the nature of mandamus and/or certiorari. The petitioner has prayed for quashing of the order of the respondent, withdrawing the security provided to him and also for a direction to the respondents, to restore police security by providing „Personal Security Officers‟(for short „PSO‟).

2. It is the case of the petitioner that he was initially appointed as the president of Shiv Sena unit of Delhi, but subsequently resigned from the party. Thereafter, he launched his own political party by the name of "Rastrawadi Sena", of which, the petitioner is now the National President. The petitioner submits that on account of being one of the main accused in the "Babri Mosque" demolition case, and the fact that he had strongly opposed terrorist activities in the country by leading various demonstrations, there has been a continuous threat to his life. He states that he has been receiving threatening telephone calls from various people and groups and on informing the Police of the said threats, was given security on June 07, 2001. And that on November 30, 2001, the said security was abruptly withdrawn.

3. The petitioner further submits that on May 30, 2002, a terrorist fired a bullet at his car, which resulted in the injury to his driver. And that immediately thereafter the respondent no.3, Station House Officer (for short „SHO‟), Police Station, Shahdara provided one PSO for the petitioner. And that on seeing an imminent danger to the life of the petitioner, the Delhi Security Branch on June 21, 2002 increased his security by deputing three PSOs with him. The petitioner submits that subsequently on October 05, 2002, the said security was again withdrawn abruptly without giving any reason. And that till November 2008 the petitioner was only provided security intermittently.

4. The petitioner submits that on November 03, 2008, a demonstration was organized by the members of the "Rastrawadi

Sena" outside the "Maharashtra Sadan", following attacks on north Indians in Maharashtra. An FIR was subsequently registered by the police bearing No. 345/2008, in which the petitioner was named as an accused, though he was not involved in the offences mentioned therein. The petitioner further submits that on November 04, 2008, the office of the Rastrawadi Sena was set on fire at Shahdara Chowk, after which security was again withdrawn by the police on November 26, 2008. The petitioner states that he subsequently received a threatening phone call from an unknown phone number. On verification, the said call was found to have been made from Jammu.

5. The petitioner contends that since he is the leader of a political party and a firm Hindu activist, his life is in constant danger. And that it is the duty of the State to continue providing security to him as was done in the past. He submits that the act of the respondent of withdrawing the PSOs was in violation of the petitioner‟s Fundamental Rights.

6. In response to this petition, respondent no. 3 has filed a Status Report dated November 26, 2009. The said Report states that based on two threats on September 03 and 17, 2009, the petitioner requested for protection to be restored as on November 26, 2008. In reply to the said request, the case of the petitioner was assessed by the Security Review Committee, Police Head Quarters (PHQ), wherein it was decided that the police protection given to the petitioner be withdrawn. And that the matter regarding security arrangements for the petitioner was examined

by the Ministry of Home Affairs in consultation with the Central Security Agencies, but was not acceded to vide Order dated April 23, 2009.

7. The Report also states that the petitioner had allegedly received two threats through the telephone on September 03 and 17, 2009. On examination by the police it was found that the call received on September 03, 2009 was from an unknown number that belonged to a PCO booth at Gandhi Road, Jammu. With regard to the subsequent call on September 17, 2009, the petitioner did not provide a telephone number, but merely claimed that the caller stated to have made the call from Australia. Based on the above examination, the Police did not find anything on record to substantiate the allegations leveled in the complaint. Hence, the Report records that there was no need for giving security to the petitioner. However, the Report states that the Division Staff were briefed for the protection of the petitioner.

8. Subsequently, vide order dated February 02, 2010, this Court recorded that the petitioner was willing to bear the expenses of providing security in case the respondents review the threat perception and agree to provide the requisite security. In light of the statement of the petitioner, the Ld. Addl. Standing Counsel stated that the respondent would again review the threat perception and take appropriate decisions thereafter. In consonance with the directions of this Court, the respondent reviewed the threat perception of the petitioner and filed another Status Report dated April 28, 2010. The

Report states that there was no specific intelligence input suggesting any threat to the petitioner. However, the Report records that since the petitioner was involved in organizing protests and demonstrations on various issues affecting minorities, he faced a general threat from fanatic fundamentalist elements. And that in light of the situation, the Division Staff were sensitized for protection of the petitioner.

9. Subsequently, vide order dated November 29, 2011, this Court, based on the petitioner‟s apprehension that he was continuing to receive threats, directed the respondent to make a fresh assessment of security of the petitioner. In pursuance of this order, a fresh Status Report was placed on record by the respondent on February 15, 2012. The Report states that as per the most recent Threat Assessment Report dated December 28, 2011, there did not appear to be any specific threat to the petitioner from any terrorist/criminal outfit and that there was no necessity to provide him security. And that despite this, two constables were deployed near the office of the petitioner. The report further submits that the security cover for the petitioner was withdrawn on November 27, 2011 and his name was ordered to be deleted from the list of „protectees‟.

10. Thereafter, on July 16, 2013, the petitioner persisted that he is still receiving threats and that on the first of the month some miscreants damaged his office on the first floor of B-437, Main Shahdara Chowk. In reply, the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Special Cell stated that there were two cross cases between the parties

i.e. FIRs No 264/2013 and 265/2013 and that this case had nothing to do with the petitioner. Vide an order passed on the same day, the Court directed the Status Reports of both the cases to be filed by the police.

11. The said Report states that the petitioner has time and again made phone calls to the P.S., Shahdara alleging quarrels and nuisances around his office areas. However, when the police reached the spot, no evidence was found to substantiate the petitioner‟s complaints. IN any event, FIR No. 264/2013 under Sections 323 and 341 of the Indian Penal Code (for short „IPC‟) and FIR No 265/2013 under Sections 323/341/336/427/506/34 of the IPC have been registered. And that even though the petitioner was not a party to either of the FIRs stated above, he has tried to exploit the said FIRs for his personal security.

12. The Report further records that the political activities of the petitioner are within the knowledge of the local police and that appropriate protection would be provided whenever he carried out any demonstration or protest within the jurisdiction of the P.S Shahdara. And that at present, no specific threat perception has come to the notice of the police. However, the report states that two constables are deployed near the office of the petitioner and patrolling motorcycle staff and ERV staff has been visiting the area around the residence and office of the petitioner. And that at present, one PSO has been provided for the petitioner by order of the Addl. CP North- East District temporarily.

13. I have heard the Ld. Counsels for the parties, and also perused through the documents placed on record including the various Status Reports. It is apparent to me that the Police has carried out various enquiries and investigations at the behest of the petitioner‟s complaints. Despite not finding anything substantial to warrant deployment of security personnel, the respondent has still provided the petitioner with security from time to time. It also appears to me that the respondents have diligently followed up each of the petitioner‟s apprehensions by carrying out extensive threat perception assessments. Moreover, the case of the petitioner was also assessed by the Security Review Committee, Police Head Quarters as well as by the Ministry of Home Affairs in consultation with the Central Security Agencies. Furthermore, there is nothing on record to suggest that the threat perception assessment carried out by the Police and other authorities was carried out in a malafide manner. Given the circumstances, I do not find any reason to disbelieve the findings made in the Status Reports filed by the Police from time to time.

14. As observed in Order dated February 4, 2010, it is apparent that the petitioner is desperate to avail of security, to the extent that he is willing to bear the expenses of providing security cover. At this juncture it must be said that if the petitioner is not satisfied with the security provided to him by the police from time to time, the petitioner is free to avail the services of the Private Security Agencies which are governed by the Private Security Agencies (Regulation) Act, 2005. The Police however, cannot be forced to provide security to the petitioner

upon his whims and fancies, more so, when repeated investigations and enquiries have not revealed anything to substantiate the petitioner‟s premonitions. Thus no further directions or monitoring is warranted. This petition along with all the ancillary applications is hereby dismissed.

M.L. MEHTA, J.

OCTOBER 03, 2013 kk/rmm