IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY FRIDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF APRIL, TWO THOUSAND EIGHT ONLY WRIT PETITION No.13856 of 2007 Between: Dantaluri Krishna. … Petitioner And The State of Andhra Pradesh, reptd., by the Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and five others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioners: Sri E.Ayyapa Reddy, learned Senior Counsel for Sri E.Srikanth Goud. Counsel for the respondents: Asst. Govt. Pleader for Home This Court made the following: ORDER:- This Writ Petition is filed for a Writ of Mandamus to declare the inaction of the respondents in providing Personal Security Officers/Gunmen 2+2 pursuant to representation of the petitioner dated 28-2-2007 on the basis of report dated 23-4-2007 of the Inspector of Police, Pulivendla, as illegal and void. The petitioner sought for a direction to the respondents to forthwith provide Personal Security Officers/Gunmen to the petitioner. The facts in this case are not in dispute. The petitioner is a resident of Pulivendla and holding the office of Youth Congress President, Pulivendla. He is one of the accused in Crime No.47 of 2001 having been charged for the offence under Section 120-B IPC, Sections 4(B) and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908, Section 25(1B)(a) of the Arms Act, 1959, and Section 8(1) of APPS Act on the file of Anantapur I Town Police Station. The petitioner submitted representations dated 28-2-2007 to the Honourable Minister for Home, Government of Andhra Pradesh; the Director General of Police; Inspector General of Police, Rayalaseema Zone; and the Superintendent of Police, Kadapa, for providing Gunmen. The Inspector of Police, Kadapa, submitted his report dated 28-4-2007 to the Superintendent of Police, Kadapa, wherein it was stated that the petitioner is facing life threat from various sources; and that he is not eligible for provision of gunmen as per the guidelines contained in G.O.Rt.No.655, Home (SC-B) Department, dated 13-3- 1997 as he has a criminal background. Counter-affidavit has been filed by the Additional Superintendent of Police, Kadapa District, in which he admitted that in the enquiry report submitted by the Inspector of Police it is mentioned that there are chances of attack on the life of the petitioner by the political rival groups to the family of Sri Y.S.Jagan Mohan Reddy as well as the Maoist extremists. It is, however, stated that since the petitioner’s name figured as A.5 in the above mentioned crime - wherein he is facing the charge that he conspired in preparation of a suitcase bomb targeting late Sri Paritala Ravindra, the then MLA of Penukonda Assembly Constituency - and the case is pending trial, the petitioner is not eligible for provision of gunmen in view of Clause-C (6) of G.O.Rt.No.655, dated 13-3- 1997. At the hearing, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, while admitting the fact that the report submitted by the officer concerned acknowledged existence of life threat to the petitioner, however, reiterated the stand taken in the counter-affidavit that the petitioner does not satisfy the conditions contained in G.O.Rt.No.655, dated 13-3-1997. I have carefully perused the said G.O., which was issued on the directions given by this Court to the Government to frame guidelines in the matter of providing security to private persons. In pursuance of the said directions, the Government issued the said G.O., which divided the persons under different categories. Private persons fall in Category No.4. Clause-C of the said G.O., contains general guidelines for providing security. Sub-Clause (6) of Clause-C reads as under: “ A person having criminal background should not be given security except when the criminal case is closed or acquitted against him. Further in case there is a genuine threat from naxalites of PWG or in case he is holding public office, then specific permission from I.G.P., Intelligence, who is the Nodal Authority, should be taken before providing him”. Sri E.Ayyapu Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, argued that the word “criminal background” connotes that a person must have been indulging in a series of criminal cases and that involvement in a solitary criminal case would not fall within this expression. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home seriously opposed this contention and, according to her, the question whether a person is having the criminal background or not is required to be determined with reference to the severity of the offence in which he is involved and not on the basis of the quantum of the criminal cases. Having given serious consideration to the respective submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the word “criminal background” indicates that the background of a person is such that he has a history of being involved in criminal cases. If the intention of the Government were to deny a person the benefit of Police security if he is merely involved in one criminal case, nothing would have prevented it from saying that a person involved in any criminal case is not eligible for such security. The very fact that the word “criminal background” is used in the said G.O., would clearly go to show that the Government never intended that merely on account of the involvement in a stray criminal case a person who faces life threat would render himself ineligible for being provided with security. As rightly argued by Sri E.Ayyapu Reddy, mere involvement in a criminal case would not by itself raise a presumption of his guilt because under the criminal jurisprudence till a person is convicted by a competent court of law, he is presumed to be innocent. In the face of the undeniable fact that the petitioner is facing a serious life threat, I am of the view that the respondents are not justified in denying Police protection in terms of G.O.Rt.No.655, dated 13-3-1997 merely on the basis of pendency of a single criminal case against him. For the above-mentioned reasons, the Writ Petition is allowed. The Superintendent of Police, Kadapa, respondent No.5, is directed to consider the petitioner’s request for providing security in terms of G.O.Rt.No.655, dated 13-3-1997 without reference to Clause-C 6) of the said G.O., within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. ------------------------------------ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J 11-4-2008 MNR