Chandrashekhar Singh @ Dhananjay Singh v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.22326 of 2013 ======================================================

1. Chandrashekhar Singh @ Dhananjay Singh Son Of Sri Madan Singh Resident Of Village- Pratappur, P.S.- Hussainganj, District- Siwan .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State Of Bihar Through The Director General Of Police, Bihar, Patna

2. The District Magistrate, Siwan

3. The Superintendent Of Police, Siwan

4. The Officer In Charge Of Siwan Town Police Statiion, District- Siwan .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ranjeet Kumar For the Respondent/s : Mr. Abhay Shankar Jha ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KISHORE KUMAR MANDAL ORAL ORDER 29-06-2016 The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 29.09.2012 passed by the respondent Superintendent of Police whereby it was informed that he can be provided the Bodyguard but on payment. Counsel for the State has drawn attention of the Court to the averments made in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent nos. 3 after service. However, there is no rejoinder to the counter affidavit.

While enclosing the proceedings of the District Security Committee, the respondent has stated as under in paragraph 4:- "........... And when the petitioner filed petition to provide bodyguard to him, the same was put up before the District Security Committee in which the then Superintendent of Police Siwan and Dy. S.P. Spl. Branch Chapra Saran were present beside District Magistrate Siwan, Chairman of the Committee and in the said meeting dated 25.09.2013, it was intimated by Dy. Superintendent of Police SPL Branch that the petitioner had been provided

Patna High Court CWJC No.22326 of 2013 (2) dt.29-06-2016 2/2 bodyguard on the condition of payment and for so a sum of Rs. 305082/- was due, to be paid by the petitioner. In the committee it was also considered about the petitioner past criminal antecedent and recently a case had been instituted against him in Siwan Town PS. Further it was also considered that there had been no complaint of any overt-act committed against the petitioner, still it was decided by the committee that if the petitioner pays the amount due to him then for providing bodyguard to the petitioner may be considered."

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to allow the application. The application is dismissed. (Kishore Kumar Mandal, J) Pankaj/- U