Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

GAYUR HASAN versus STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Gayur Hasan v. State Of U.P. And Others - CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. 5520 of 2006 [2007] RD-AH 8533 (7 May 2007)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Criminal Misc. Application No.      of 2007

            on behalf of

Principal Secretary, Home

                  In

criminal misc. writ petition no. 5520 of 2006

Gayur Hasan..........................Petitioner

                     versus

state of u.p. and others.............respndents.

              *************

Hon'ble Imtiyaz Murtaza, J.

Hon'ble Amar Saran, J.

Heard learned A.G.A. for the State.  

This application has been filed because of a dilemma faced by the State due to an apparent inconsistency between an order passed by a Division Bench in Lucknow, at the instance of the petitioner Shiv Bux Singh in Writ Petition No. 467(MB) of 2006 and two earlier orders passed by this Division Bench on 13.3.2007 and 20.3.2007 as this Bench is monitoring the matters relating to the provision of Gunners to various persons. By the order dated 13.3.07 we had provided inter alia as follows:

"In the cases where persons are to appear 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 only when the court feels that security is still required to be provided to them because of continuing danger to their lives the security provided to the said persons shall continue.  If no such applications are moved the security provided to those persons shall automatically lapse and in case of any other persons whose security is being withdrawn by this order, it will be open to them to apply before this court giving reasons for seeking review of this order withdrawing their security, which was earlier granted as a result of court orders."

There was also an order passed by the Apex Court in Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 602 of 2007 dated 12.2.07 which had been filed for challenging our orders monitoring provision of Gunners to different classes of persons, which reads as under:

"Delay condoned.

Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners, we are of the opinion that it is not necessary to interfere with the impugned order at this stage.  In the event, the State intends to review the situation, the same may be brought to the notice of the High Court and we are sure an appropriate order in accordance with law will be passed.

The special leave petition is dismissed accordingly."

Learned A.G.A. informs that in pursuance of the above orders the security of Shiv Bux Singh who had been granted security vide an earlier order dated 30.1.2006 in writ petition No. 467(MB) of 2006 (on the ground that he was an eye witness of an occurrence in which his son was murdered), had been withdrawn because no application had been moved before the court concerned by Shiv Bux Singh within two months as required by our order dated 13.3.2007 referred to above. Consequently without any fault on part of the State contempt proceedings have been drawn against the Principal Secretary Home, Govt. of U.P. and others by a single judge for violation of the order in Writ Petition No. 467 (MB) of 2006 and that in view of the apparent inconsistency with our order the State is faced with a dilemma and seeks clarification of our order. It is further submitted by the learned A.G.A. that the evidence in the case in which Shiv Bux Singh has to appear as a witness has not been concluded and the matter is being unduly prolonged.

In the light of this submission, we direct that the security as granted earlier to Shiv Bux Singh in pursuance of the order of this court dated 30.1.2006 in writ petition no. 467(MB) of 2006 may continue for a further period of three months or till the evidence of the said witness is recorded, whichever is earlier and we also direct the trial court concerned to positively ensure that the evidence of this witness is recorded within the said period. In case of any unavoidable difficulty faced by the trial Court in recording the evidence of Shiv Bux Singh, for which Shiv Bux Singh is himself not responsible, in the aforesaid period it will be open to Shiv Bux Singh to seek appropriate directions from the trial Court in the light of our orders dated 13.3.2007 and 20.3.2007 in Cr. Writ No. 5520 of 2006.

With these observations, the application is disposed of finally.

Office is directed to furnish a copy of this order to the learned A.G.A. within 48 hours for filing the same in the contempt application no. 880 of 2007.

Dated: 7.5.2007.

o.k.    


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.