IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6932 of 2011 Kishore Kumar Versus The State Of Bihar & Ors ----------- For the Petitioner: Mr. Suresh Chandra Giri, Advocate For the State : Md. Nasrul Hoda Khan, SC 18 Md. Irshad, AC to SC 18 3 28.7.2011 Learned State counsel submits that he had filed two counter affidavits; one on behalf of respondent nos.3, 8 and 10 and the other on behalf of respondent no.7. It appears that the counter affidavits have got misplaced. Learned counsel for the petitioner has provided two sets of copies of counter affidavits which are being kept on the records of this case. The petitioner prays for issuance of a direction to the respondent authorities to provide security to him as he apprehends danger to his life and property. The petitioner was elected as M.L.A. in February 2005 Assembly Election from Sonbarsa Assembly Constituency. It is stated that in the year 2010 Sonbarsa Assembly Constituency was made reserved for Scheduled Caste and the petitioner as an independent candidate fought election from Saharsa Constituency which he lost. The petitioner submits that after defeat in the 2010 Assembly Election his security was withdrawn. The petitioner submits that he received threatening calls and therefore he has lodged a Sanha before the Station House Officer, Saharsa also on 17.12.2010, a copy of which is at 2 KHAN Annexure-1. The petitioner submits that even the Dy. S.P.(Special Branch) vide his letter no.2797 dated 29.12.2010 has reiterated the threat perception to the petitioner. The petitioner further submits that earlier an attempt was made to kill him in the year 2002 in which one of his associates Ghanshyam Singh was killed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that submissions of the petitioner also finds support from paragraph 9 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent nos.3, 8 and 10. In paragraph 9, it has been stated that the Dy. S.P. (Special Branch) had submitted a report suggesting need for providing bodyguard to the petitioner. Counsel for the State submits that it is the District Security Committee, which is the competent authority to take a decision in this matter. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State, I direct the District Security Committee headed by the District Magistrate, Saharsa to consider the desirability of providing security to the petitioner in accordance with law preferably within three months from today. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this writ petition stands disposed of. (S.P.Singh,J)