Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Advocates
  • R.C.Gupta
Judges
  • Imtiyaz Murtaza
  • Amar Saran, JJ.
Acts
  • sections 147, 149, 302, 323 and 504, I.P.C, P.S
  • section 302, I.P.C
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Click here to upload
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Advocates
  • R.C.Gupta
Judges
  • Imtiyaz Murtaza
  • Amar Saran, JJ.
Acts
  • sections 147, 149, 302, 323 and 504, I.P.C, P.S
  • section 302, I.P.C
See more information ...
Smart Summary

Structured Summary of the Opinion

Factual and Procedural Background

This writ petition was filed by Gayur Hasan, the informant in Crime No. 289 of 2005 (P.S. Bahar, District Muzaffarnagar), registered under sections 147, 149, 302, 323 and 504, I.P.C. The case arises from the murder of the petitioner's younger brother, Manzoor Hasan, on 14.10.2005 at 6:45 A.M.; another brother, Zakir, was injured in the same incident. Respondent No. 4, Meharban, was one of five accused in the case.

The petitioner alleged that despite Meharban's implication in the offence under section 302, I.P.C., Meharban had not been arrested and had been provided a state-funded security guard (gunner). The petitioner sought withdrawal of that security and his arrest by means of the writ petition.

Two counter-affidavits were filed: one by Meraj Ahmad Khan, Inspector, CBCID (the then-present investigating officer), and another by Ganga Sharan, ASI, PS Babari. The CBCID affidavit explained administrative transfers of the investigation — from the local police to CBCID Meerut (investigation started 5.12.2005; charge-sheet against four other accused submitted on 9.1.2006) and thereafter to CBCID Lucknow (investigation re-assigned on 1.3.2006 and handed over to the present officer on 25.3.2006). The investigator stated that investigation against respondent No. 4 had been kept pending; he was reviewing prior statements and had received 35 affidavits in favour of the accused which had been filed before the CJM, Muzaffarnagar and forwarded to him.

The ASI's counter-affidavit annexed an SSP letter (dated 9.5.2006) stating that a fax from the Secretary to the Chief Minister dated 19.11.2005 had granted a gunner to respondent No. 4 for six months effective 15.12.2005. The SSP letter also recorded the District Committee's report (29.11.2005) that it did not recommend the grant of a gunner, and a later communication (9.4.2006) stating there was no threat perception and no recommendation for security; nevertheless no order withdrawing the gunner from the State Government had been received.

Legal Issues Presented

  1. Whether the state-funded security (gunner) provided to Respondent No. 4, who is an accused in a murder case (section 302, I.P.C.), should be withdrawn.
  2. Whether the investigating agency should conclude the investigation against Respondent No. 4 and take steps to arrest him if warranted.
  3. Whether the provision of security in the particular case complied with applicable Government Orders and the criteria/procedures prescribed thereunder (including review and committee-based recommendation requirements).

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioner's Arguments

  • The petitioner (informant) asserted that Respondent No. 4 (Meharban) was implicated in the murder (section 302, I.P.C.) and had not been arrested despite involvement in that serious offence.
  • The petitioner alleged that Respondent No. 4 had been provided a state-funded security guard despite being an accused in a murder case, and sought withdrawal of that security and his arrest.
  • The petitioner also alleged that Respondent No. 4 was an ex-Pradhan who wielded political influence, which could explain preferential treatment in receiving security.

State / Respondent(s) Arguments and Factual Replies

  • The investigating officer (Meraj Ahmad Khan, CBCID) explained the serial transfers of investigation (local police → CBCID Meerut → CBCID Lucknow), the filing of a charge-sheet against four co-accused, and that investigation as to Respondent No. 4 had been kept pending while the officer verified prior statements and examined affidavits (35 affidavits in favour of the accused were received and forwarded by the DG CBCID, Lucknow).
  • The ASI's affidavit (Ganga Sharan) annexed the SSP's letter noting a fax from the Secretary to the Chief Minister granting a gunner to Respondent No. 4 (effective 15.12.2005 for six months); the SSP letter also recorded that the District Committee did not recommend the gunner and that subsequently there was no threat perception, yet no withdrawal order had been received from the State Government.
  • The CBCID investigating officer stated he had no information regarding whether security had been provided to Respondent No. 4 (this is recorded as his position in the counter-affidavit).

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent Rule or Principle Cited For Application by the Court
M.A. Khan Chamman v. State of U.P., Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 484 of 2002 (Division Bench decision dated 1.4.2004) Admonition that there is no right to enjoy state-funded security (gunners) "ad infinitum"; the practice of acquiring gunners as a status symbol and providing security on flimsy grounds must be ended. The Court relied on this prior Division Bench observation to underscore that state-funded security should not be an entitlement for those who obtain it through undue influence; the passage supported the Court's direction to withdraw the gunner from Respondent No. 4 and to curb improper provision of security at taxpayers' expense.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court's analysis followed these points as reflected in the opinion:

  1. The Court found the explanation given in the counter-affidavits for the delay in arresting Respondent No. 4 and for the non-submission of a charge-sheet against him to be protracted and insufficiently persuasive — the opinion describes the explanation as a "long-winded explanation" for extraordinary tardiness.
  2. The Court noted the factual matrix that Respondent No. 4 remained unarrested despite implication in a murder case and, in apparent contradiction to policy, was provided with a gunner at State expense. The petitioner’s averment that security had been provided was not specifically denied in the two counter-affidavits; the investigating officer claimed lack of information, while the SSP's letter recorded an initial grant by fax from the Secretary to the Chief Minister.
  3. The Court examined the relevant Government Orders governing provision of security personnel. It identified and relied on a G.O. dated 19.2.1996 (noting the adverse impact of providing gunners to persons with criminal antecedents) and a subsequent G.O. dated 25.4.2001 that expressly restricted provision of security to persons engaged in criminal activities and required committee procedures, categories for granting security, limits on uniformed gunners versus trained shadows, periodic reviews, and specific approval mechanisms for extensions.
  4. On reviewing compliance with those G.O.s, the Court observed that in practice single or multiple gunners had been provided on a long-term basis to many persons "in gross violation" of the 25.4.2001 directions. The Court highlighted that the policy contemplated committee consideration, limited categories for uniformed gunners, and periodical reviews — none of which appeared to have been properly followed in this instance.
  5. The Court invoked prior judicial admonition (M.A. Khan Chamman) that the privilege of state-funded security is not an indefinite right and that the practice of conferring gunners on flimsy grounds encourages misuse and serves as a status symbol. That precedent underpinned the Court’s remedial approach.
  6. Considering the foregoing, the Court concluded that the gunner provided to Respondent No. 4 should be withdrawn immediately (if not already withdrawn) and that the investigating officer should promptly conclude the investigation against Respondent No. 4 and take steps for his arrest if required.
  7. The Court further analyzed administrative accountability and systemic consequences: it required the Principal Secretary (Home) to file a detailed report with a tabular statement about persons provided security in the last year, reasons for security, duration, payments (if any), basis for additional security, and whether periodic reviews were conducted — thereby enforcing procedural compliance with the G.O.s and enabling judicial oversight.
  8. The Court also required the State to identify how many persons involved in criminal cases had been provided security and to quantify the shortfall in police personnel due to assignment of staff as gunners, directing the State to propose steps to reduce unnecessary security assignments and to ensure orders authorizing security explain the reasons for providing it.

Holding and Implications

Holding:

The Court directed that the gunner provided to Respondent No. 4 be withdrawn with immediate effect (if not already withdrawn), and directed the investigating officer to conclude the investigation against Respondent No. 4 forthwith and take steps for his arrest if necessary.

Additional orders and administrative directions issued as part of the holding:

  • The Principal Secretary (Home), Government of U.P. (Respondent No. 1), was directed to submit a report to the Court containing a table enumerating persons provided security in the last year, the reasons, periods, payments made (if any), basis for additional security, and details of periodical reviews as required by the Government Orders.
  • The State was directed to state how many persons provided security were involved in criminal cases, the shortfall in police personnel caused by security assignments, and to set out steps to reduce provision of unnecessary security. The Court directed that district-level committees or SSPs/SPs record reasons when granting security so courts can evaluate compliance with Government Orders.
  • Administrative directions were given for communication of the order to the Principal Secretary (Home) and the Investigating Officer within a week, and for supplying a copy to the Advocate General within 24 hours. The matter was listed for further orders on 12.7.2006.

Implications: The direct effect on the parties is the withdrawal of the gunner (if not already withdrawn), expedited completion of investigation, and potential arrest of Respondent No. 4. The Court also imposed supervisory and reporting obligations on the State to ensure compliance with existing Government Orders governing provision of security personnel. The opinion relies on existing Government Orders and an earlier Division Bench decision to justify remedial steps; the judgment does not announce a novel legal doctrine beyond enforcing those controls and prior judicial admonitions.

Appreciation was expressed by the Court for the Advocate General's assistance; the Court recorded that the Advocate General would further examine the issue and address the Court again on the next date of hearing.

Show full summary ...

    Gayur Hasan v. State Of U.P Through Secretary, (Home), Lucknow And Others

    Imtiyaz Murtaza and Amar Saran, JJ.:— This writ petition has been filed by Gayur Hasan, who is informant in case Crime No. 289 of 2005, under sections 147, 149, 302, 323 and 504, I.P.C, P.S Bahar, District Muzaffarnagar, in which respondent No. 4, Meharban was an accused along with four others for the murder of the petitioner's younger brother, Manzoor Hasan, on 14.10.2005 at 6.45 A.M Another brother of the petitioner, Zakir, had received injuries in this case. It was pointed out in this petition that Meharban had not been arrested in spite of his involvement in this case under section 302, I.P.C and, in fact, he was provided with a security guard. The petitioner, therefore, prays for withdrawal of the security guard provided to respondent No. 4 and for his arrest by means of this writ petition.

    2. Two counter affidavits have been filed, one by Meraj Ahmad Khan, Inspector, CBCID, (who is now investigating the case) and another by Ganga Sharan, ASI, PS Babari. The counter affidavit by Meraj Kiran mentions that investigation was transferred to CBCID, Meerut, by orders of the State Government dated 25.11.2005, who started the investigation of the case on 5.12.2005, and submitted charge-sheet against the four other accused, namely, Gulab, Mehboob, Habibuddin and Jamiluddin on 9.1.2006 However, the investigation against respondent No. 4 was kept pending and on 1.3.2006 the State Government again transferred the investigation to CIS of CBCID, Lucknow, and the present investigating officer was handed over the investigation on 25.3.2006 The investigating officer further states that thereafter he has been examining and verifying the correctness of the statements recorded by the civil police and CBCID, Meerut, and that he has received 35 affidavits in favour of the accused which were filed before the CJM, Muzaffarnagar and, which were forwarded to him by the DG, CBCID, Lucknow.

    3. Presumably, this long-winded explanation has been given for explaining the extraordinary tardiness in arresting respondent No. 4 and for not submitting a charge-sheet against him.

    4. It has been mentioned by the petitioner in the writ petition that respondent No. 4 is an ex-Pradhan, who wields influence in the ruling party. This claim of the petitioner appears to be buttressed by the fact that in spite of the implication of respondent No. 4 a case under section 302, I.P.C, in which there was an injured witness, he has been provided a security guard at State's expenses and this averment in paragraph 16 of the writ petition has not been specifically denied in the aforementioned two counter affidavits. The Counter Affidavit of Meraj Khan, the present investigating officer of-CBCID, Lucknow, states that he has no information with regard to the provision of security to respondent No. 4. With the other counter affidavit of Ganga Sharan, ASI of PS Babari, District Muzaffarnagar a letter of the SSP, Muzaffarnagar, dated 9.5.2006 has been annexed which mentions that a fax message was received from Secretary to the Chief Minister dated 19.11.2005 granting a gunner to respondent No. 4 for a period of 6 months at State's expense with effect from 15.12.2005 It further mentions that the District Committee had reported on 29.11.2005 that it was not recommending the grant of a gunner and that on 9.4.2006 again a letter was sent that there was no threat perception to the life of respondent No. 4 and that no recommendation had been made for providing him a security guard. But still no orders, withdrawing the gunner had been received from the State Government.

    5. This is an extremely shocking state of affairs. In a Government Order dated 19.2.1996 it has been noted that providing gunners, shadows, and guards to persons with criminal antecedents on the one hand reflects adversely, on the reputation of the Government and administration, and on the other hand it gives encouragement to criminals.

    6. A subsequent Government Order dated 25.4.2001 provides in clause 10 that ordinarily no such person will be provided with security, who is engaged in criminal activities and which may result in misuse of the privilege. The said clause reads as follows:

    7. In spite of the clear and categorical restriction imposed by the Government Order security has been provided to the respondent No. 4 in the present case.

    8. The said Government Order dated 25.4.2001 further provides inter alia that ordinarily in place of a uniformed gunner, only a trained shadow armed with revolver/pistol will be provided. A uniformed gunner may only be provided to high officials, viz. Hon'ble Ministers, High Court Judges, M.Ps and M.L As for special reasons.

    9. For estimating the appropriateness and the risk to life for provision of a gunner/shadow, a committee headed by the District Magistrate wherein the SSP/S.P, Dy S.P/Inspector LIU were to be members was required to be constituted.

    10. M.Ps and M.L As are to be provided with one security personnel free of cost and when considered appropriate by the committee an additional plam clothes security person may be provided on 25 per cent payment. Retired M.Ps, MLAs could be provided one security person at 10 per cent cost when considered appropriate. State Chairpersons/of public corporations. Chairpersons of Zila Panchayats, Nagar Pramukhs and Vice-Chancellors may be provided with one security person each at 10 per cent cost. (However, so far as Chairpersons of Zila Panchayats was concerned the requirement for 10 percent cost for a security person has been done away with by a G.O dated 16.6.2004).

    11. For other persons according to need, on the recommendation of the district level committee, one Security person could be provided at 100 per cent cost. In cases of heinous crimes, pairokars and witnesses may be provided security subject to the approval and control of the committee. On the recommendation of the district level committee, the S.S.P/S.P may provide security for one month and the period, can be further extended in one month blocks for a total period of three months. For any further extension of the period the recommendation of the district level committee needs the approval of the State Government.

    12. There has to be a monthly review by the District Magistrate and S.S.P/S.P and a three monthly review by the D.I.G of the region of the security provided to persons other than M.Ps M.L As, Ministers and High Court Judges and classified V.I.Ps The reports have to be submitted through the Director General Police to the State Government.

    13. However, it appears that in gross violation of these directions, single or multiple gunners have been provided on long term basis to all and sundry at tax payers cost in clear violation of the criteria set out in the Government Order dated 25.4.2001

    14. In an earlier decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 484 of 2002 (M.A Khan Chamman v. State of U.P,) decided on 1.4.2004, (in which one of us, Amar Saran J. was a member) it has been observed:

    “There is no right of the petitioner to enjoy this privilege ad infinitum, it is regrettable that on flimsy grounds people exercise undue influence and manage to secure gunners and security at state expense and at tax payers cost. In fact acquisition of a gunner has begun to be treated as a status symbol. This practice must be brought to an end.”

    15. In a recent write-up in ‘Times of India’ (Lucknow Edition) dated 19.4.2006 titled, “Small-timers gunning for security cover in U.P” it was pointed out that because of the demand for security by petty politicians and other ineligible persons, there is dearth of manpower for manning our police stations, resulting in discounting of general policing and it is the public who has to bear the brunt of the shortfall. Ironically according to the columnist they are people's representatives who are seeking protection and “Those whom they are supposed to serve are left at the mercy of god.” We wonder whether that protection is needed from the unserved people themselves. According to the article the coterie of VIP politicians who were given X, Y or Z class security has increased from 30 last year to 70 in the current year. 37 personnel and additional expenditure on other infrastructure is required for providing security to a single ‘Z’ category politician.

    16. In this view of the matter we direct that the gunner to provided to Respondent No. 4 be withdrawn with immediate effect, in case he has not already been withdrawn. The present investigating officer is also directed to conclude the investigation against the respondent No. 4 forthwith and to take steps for his arrest if needed.

    17. We further direct the Principal Secretary (Home), Government of U.P, respondent No. 1, to submit a report to this Court which should also contain a table indicating the number of persons, who have been provided security in the last one year, the reasons for security given in each case, the period for which security was given, whether any payment has been taken for providing security if required as per the G.O for one or more security personnel, the basis for providing additional security, whether there have been periodical reviews of the need for security by the Committee as provided by the Government Order.

    18. The number of persons who were involved in criminal cases who were provided with security, and the shortfall in number of police personnel required for manning police stations and for other duties may also be indicated in the counteraffidavit of the State. It shall also mention steps to be taken by the Government for reduction of provision of unnecessary security, and henceforth we direct that the district level committee or the S.S Ps./S.Ps mention reasons in their orders for providing security, so that the Court may be in a position to evaluate whether the provision of security in a particular case was justified and also in accordance with the letter and spirit of the Government Orders. The relevant Government Orders dealing with the subject of the provision of gunners and other security personnel may also be annexed with the Counter Affidavit.

    19. Finally we must put in a word of appreciation for the Advocate General who on our short notice during the course of hearing of this petition appeared in our Court to render effective assistance to us. He promises to look into the matter in greater depth and to see that the issue is addressed in proper perspective by the State Government, and to again address the Court on the next date of hearing.

    20. Office is directed to communicate this order to the Principal Secretary (Home), respondent No. 1 and to the Investigating Officer, CIS, CB, CID, Lucknow within a week. Copy of the order may be furnished to the learned G.A within 24 hours.

    21. List this case on 12.7.2006 for further orders.

    Use AI to get other relevant cases.
    Try AI Pro free for 7 days Upgrade to AI Pro

    Comments

    Gayur Hasan v. State Of U.P Through Secretary, (Home), Lucknow And Others
    (May 25, 2006)