IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 170 (Criminal) of 2010 Sunil Rathi. …………..Petitioner (in Jail) Versus State of Uttarakhand and others. …….Respondents. Present: Mr. Karan Anand, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. S.S. Adhikari, learned counsel for the State of Uttarakhand /respondents. Coram Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J Hon’ble Nirmal Yadav, J. By means of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner, who is facing trial in several criminal cases in the State of Uttarakhand, State of U.P. and Delhi has filed this writ petition for the following reliefs: “a. issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing to the respondents to provide proper protection and security to the petitioner during the court attendance, which was being provided earlier to petitioner. b. issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing to the respondents to keep the petitioner in nearest District Jail for the night after attaining the court concerned, in the process of appearance before the trial courts. c. such other reliefs as this Hon’ble Court deems just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be granted.” 2 Heard Sri Karan Anand learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S.S. Adhikari, learned AGA for the State of Uttarakhand / respondents and perused the record. It appears from the perusal of the record that petitioner has also filed writ petition earlier for providing adequate security and that writ petition was disposed of by this court on 15.11.2006. Again the petitioner has made an attempt to get enhanced security to be provided to him by way of this writ petition. Petitioner presently lodged in District Jail, Pauri Garhwal. After having considered the entire material available on record, we do not find any averment in the writ petition, which may substantiate the petitioner’s apprehension. The apprehension of the petitioner appears to be imaginary to us. We, therefore, do not find any ground to grant any relief sought by the petitioner in the writ petition at this stage. In case, petitioner has already moved a representation before the authority concerned, the authority concerned, as and when, finds that threat perception to the petitioner is real one, shall take necessary steps permissible under the relevant provisions of law. With this observation, the writ petition is finally disposed of. (Nirmal Yadav, J.) (B.C. Kandpal, J) 18.03.2010 SKS