Mahender Pehlwan v. State NCT of Delhi

1. This is a petition under Section 482 Cr. P.C. for setting aside of the order dated 19th December, 2012, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge whereby the security provided to the petitioner was withdrawn and the order dated 16th January, 2013 whereby the application seeking review of the order was dismissed.

2. It is alleged in the petition that the petitioner is a prosecution witness in case FIR No.201/2010 u/s 302/307/34 IPC, PS Adarsh Nagar, Delhi. The FIR was registered against eight persons, out of 2013:DHC:5933 whom three evaded their arrest and were declared proclaimed offender. All the accused are hardened criminals and are involved in other heinous offences. The petitioner started getting the threats to his life, as such, he made an oral request to the learned Additional Sessions Judge for providing him security. SHO, PS Adarsh Nagar was directed to provide the security to the petitioner vide order dated 19th August,

2011. Subsequently, an application was moved on behalf of the prosecution on 19th December, 2011 for withdrawal of the security provided to the petitioner on the ground that his evidence has already been recorded on 19th August, 2011. The application was allowed vide order dated 19th December, 2012, and the application for review was also dismissed. It was alleged that the order for withdrawal of the security provided to the petitioner was non-existent. In that, the petitioner was accorded security on 19th August, 2011 after he was examined and cross-examined on the ground that he was apprehending danger to his life. One of the co-accused Neeraj was arrested while two are still absconding. Two of the accused have been enlarged on bail. The petitioner apprehends that they would leave no stone unturned to do away with him so that he will not be able to depose against them. Earlier, the petitioner has approached the Court with a similar petition and Commissioner of Police was directed to take a decision within one month with representation for providing security. However, no steps were taken. Reminders have also been sent by the petitioner but the same has been put off with pretext that his representation has been forwarded to the concerned police station for necessary action. Hence this petition.

3. In the status report, filed by the State, it is submitted that the petitioner is resident of PS Mahindra Park, Delhi and earlier security was provided to him at PS Mahindra Park, Delhi. The request of the petitioner for security was sent to PS Mahindra Park, Delhi. SHO/PS Mahindra Park reported that as per the directions of learned Additional Sessions Judge, the then DCP/NW directed ACP/Shalimar Bagh to provide security to the petitioner. Hence, one PSO in day time from PS Mahindra Park, Delhi was provided to the petitioner. In the meeting of Security Review Committee/PHQ held on 9th July, 2012 and 10th July, 2012, it was decided that one PSO in day time may be continued and fresh threat assessment be carried out. It was then assessed that no fresh threat of any kind related to this case was received by the petitioner till date. Petitioner has already been examined on 19th August, 2011. Petitioner is having a criminal background and is involved in 12 cases. Most of them are heinous and having personal rivalries in many cases. The petitioner is also a history sheeter of PS Mahendra Park, Delhi. As such, there is no justifiable reason that security should be provided to the petitioner.

4. During the course of argument, it was further submitted that one of the co-accused Neeraj, who was earlier declared proclaimed offender was arrested. After the filing of the supplementary charge sheet, the petitioner has already been examined as a witness qua him. As such, there is no threat to him at present.

5. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances, as regards the impugned order dated 19th December, 2012 and 16th January, 2013, the same does not suffer from any infirmity which calls for any interference. However, in case, the petitioner receives any threat, then he will be at liberty to approach the concerned Court/Commissioner of Police for providing security and it will be open to the concerned authorities to take action in the matter in accordance with law.

6. Petition is accordingly disposed of.

SUNITA GUPTA (JUDGE) NOVEMBER 20, 2013 rs