t ^ C. [QQ ! IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR fC.G.) WRITPETITION [©TNO. I&^ /2010 PETmQNfR RESPONDENTS p>', ^s^ ^^•"' ^"^1:^>' •^' \<^! Satish Chandra Verma, Son of Shri V.S. Verma, aged about 39 years, A4coate, R/o. Shri Ram Park, Maharana Pratap Nogar, Tifra, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) VERSUS 1. The State of Chhattisgah, Through : The Secretary, Home Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur (C.G.) 2. The Director General of Police, State of Chhattisgarh, Police Head Quarter, Raipur (C.G.). 3. The Superintendent of Police, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) ^" WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUST, CERTIORARY AGALNST THE RESPONDENTS ^'-^•••v ^,. y.^\^ AP^- ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (Cr.) N0.1089 OF 2010 PETITIONER Satish Chandra Verma Versus RESPONDENTS The State of Chhattisgarh & Others Post for pronouncement of orders on the !9 day of July, 2011 Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotn Judge s^ ^w HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (Cr.) N0.1089 OF2010 PETITIONER Satish Chandra Verma Versus RESPONDENTS The State of Chhattisgarh & Others (Writ Petition underArticles 226ofthe Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri S.C. Verma, petitioner in person. Shri Ajay Dwivedi, Dy. Govt. Advocate for the State. (Detivered on this /^day of July, 2011) 1. By this petition, the petitioner, who is a practicing Advocate, mainly seeks a direction to provide suitable protection to him. 2. Case of the petitioner, in brief, as projected by him, for adjudication of the dispute, is that being an Advocate the petitioner accepted the brief of one K.S. Priya, who is an accused in criminal case/sessions trial No.76/2008 pend.ing in the Court of 14th Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur. As a part of professionat duty, he has to cross-examine the witnesses. On 2-9-2009 at about 11.45 a.m. the petitioner found that the witness namely; Shrikant Dongre was being threatened & tutored by the police officials. Therefore, the petitioner immediately moved an application for the same before the Court below. According to the petitioner, on the same day on the side-tine of the Court, there was hot talk and quarrel between the defence counsel Amin Khan and the Public Prosecutor. As a counter, the police officials have also filed an application through one lady Constable namely; Saraswati Bai by making false and concocted allegations against the counsel for the accused. The said application was filed at about 5.00 p.m. before the Court below, not through the Public Prosecutor and even copy of the same has not been supplied to the counsel for the accused. (_._,.,,^-...:.._- T ^ On 2-9-2009 when the petitioner was going towards the staFrST" police personnel specially one Asfaq Ahmed Ansari, who was leading the group of police team, threatened the petitioner and Ashok Sahu, saying that they are appearing and defending in a case of naxalite. The potice officials further said that there is an instruction of the higher officials as well as Chief Minister that the counsel, who are defending the case of naxalites, should be deatt with strictly and if the counsel coutd not come under the control, then the concerned counsel should be implicated in a false naxalite case. Against the said threatening, on 5-9-2009 Ashok Sahu moved an application before the Court below, to which the State has filed its response. Thereafter, the petitioner stopped appearing in the case and filed an application before this Court under Section 407 of the Cr.P.C. and prayed on behalf of accused K.S. Priya for transfer of case from Raipur District to some other District. The said case i.e. transfer petition (Cr.) No.15 of 2009 (K.S. Priya @ Malti @ Shanti Priya v. State of Chhattisgarh) was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 8-12-2009 (Annexure - P/9) directing the Superintendent of Police, Raipur, to take necessary steps for conduction of impartial and fearless trial. Thereafter, the petitioner moved an application on 15-12-2009 for providing security, but the same does not yield any result. However, the respondent No.3 vide letter dated 16-12-2009 (Annexure - P/1) informed to the petitioner that as and when he will reach to Raipur Railway Station to attend the trial and call on mobile No.94252 13906, then a Constable shall take the petitioner to the Court premises. According to the petitioner the said protection is not sufficient and proper in view of threat given by the police personnel. Thereafter, on 10-1-2010, the petitioner again m~m^ requested for making appropriate security arrangements, but the same has not been considered till date. Thus, this petition. 6. Shri Verma, petitioner in person, woutd submit that the action of the respondents is itlegal and arbitrary. It is the duty of the prosecution as well as the trial Court to protect the interest of a counsel and litigant. Shri Verma would further submit that on account of threat given by the police, he is under a great mental tension. 7. On the other hand, Shri Dwivedi, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate appearing for the State, would submit that on 2-9-2009 during trial before tea break two lady accused persons namely; Meena & Malti went outside the Court to answer call of the nature along with lady Constable namely; Smt. R. Saraswati (1595) and other Constable (1665). On the way, the accused persons started talking to their counsel and instead of going towards bathroom the accused persons started walking towards the canteen. In between, another accused Prafulla Jha came and started talking with the accused in English and abused the police constables. 8. Shri Dwivedi would further submit that since the entire State of Chhattisgarh is affected adversely by the naxalities, the police personnel are required to perform their duties sincerely. The petitioner and his junior colleague moved the applications before the Court below by raising false and concocted allegations. In fact, the police orficials have never threatened the petitioner as well as his junior colleague. Even by letter dated 16-12-2009, the Superintendent of Police, Raipur, ready to provide the security to the petitioner while attending the case before the Court below. 9. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and the documents appended thereto. .^y^ /^^ ^ vs^^-^ 1 \^ 6^ 10. This Court by order dated 25-3-2010 directed the Superintendent of Police, Raipur, to enquire into the matter and submit a report and further directed to provide adequate protection to the petitioner. The protection, as directed earlier, continue during pendency ofthis petition. The Superintendent of Police has filed a detailed report dated 9-4-2010 holding that the police personnel against whom allegations have made have been kept away from the duty in the case. It was further submitted that there was no threat or any instruction from the higher officials to implicate the defence counsel, who are performing the constitutionalduty by appearing before the Court for the alleged accused. The Superintendent of Police also filed an affidavit dated 16-9-2010 along with a copy of the report, submitting that after examining all the persons who were either according to the petitioner were party to the alleged incident or present at that time, that no threat was made out by Shri I.H. Khan, Additional Superintendent of Police, Shri A.A. Ansari, Sub Inspector and Ku. Meena Yadav, lady constable. It was also submitted that if any complaint is made in future in respect of such act, the same cannot be permitted, the police will take severe action against the police personnel and others. 11. It is well settled that a person against who the trial is pending is not an accused till he is convicted ofthe alleged offence by the Court. During trial, it is expected that neither counsel nor any other person would attempt to meet the alleged accused without permission of the Court. 12. If there is any attempt of tutoring or influencing the witness or the alleged accused either by the police or by any other person, the defence counsel is at liberty to approach the Court where the trial is pending or to the District & Sessions Judge. The hligh Court is not a proper forum, as the High Court cannot decide the alteged disputes on the basis of affidavits alone. The trial Court as well as the Court of District & Sessions Judge is competent to look into any complaints with regard to interference with the free and fair trial of a case. 13. In view of foregoing, the defence counsel and other persons are directed that: (i) not to talk, influence or take away the persons in judicial custody without permission of the Court. (ii) if there is an attempt on the part of the police personnel to threaten the counsel to impticate in a false case or to his life, the counsel shall make a complaint to the concerned District & Sessions Judge or the trial Court. The concerned District & Sessions Judge or the trial Court: is under an obligation to look into the complaint and ensure that no defence counsel or person is harassed for no rhyme or reason when he is engaged in discharge of his duties, as defence counsel in free and fair manner. (iii) the police personnel who are carrying the alleged accused to the Courts shal.1 not attempt to influence or threaten the alleged accused, which impedes the fair trial. (iv) the trial Court shall ensure that the defence counsel are protected properly, if there is a complaint or threat to their lives, defending on the facts and circumstances of the case. 14. tf the grievance still remains, the defence counsel may a| the appropriate forum, in accordance with law, if so advised. With the aforesaid obsen/ations and directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No order asto costs. Gowri Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotri Judge