Giving Police Protection To People With Criminal Background Will Send Wrong Signal, Make Public Lose Faith In System: Madras High Court

Justice Anand Venkatesh added that courts must be very circumspect to grant police protection to any person with a criminal background. The court added that even if some persons with criminal backgrounds are given police protection, the same could not be taken as a precedent by the courts.

“If there are pending criminal cases against a person and if he develops enmity/rivalry due to his own activities, even in such cases, there is a threat perception. However, if this Court directs to give police protection for such persons, it will send a wrong signal to the society and a normal citizen should not get an impression that people with criminal background are also provided with police protection. If such an impression is created, they will lose their faith in the existing system,” the court observed.

The court made the observations while dealing with a plea filed by Venkatesh seeking directions to the police to give him police protection. Venkatesh informed the court that the jurisdictional police had alerted him about an imminent threat to his life and personal freedom and that there was a plot to target him and his brother-in-law.

The Inspector of Police, on the other hand, informed the court that almost 59 cases were pending against Venkatesh in Tamil Nadu and Andhra Pradesh. It was submitted that Venkatesh was also arrested in another case involving a threat exerted by his gun following which his movement was restricted.

The court noted that the status report filed by the Inspector of Police had virtually branded Venkatesh as a history sheeted rowdy. Though Venkatesh had argued that the criminal cases pending against him were only routine cases that were registered against a large number of persons, the court rejected the submission. The court remarked that it was curious that Venkatesh was named in each of the 49 cases pending in various districts in the State of Andhra Pradesh.

In the present case, the court also noted that the Inspector had also listed out how the police was going to handle the situation and therefore was not inclined to provide a personal security officer to Venkatesh. The court, thus, dismissed the petition.

Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr.Nithyaesh Natraj for Mr.Anirudh AS Sriram

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr. A.Damodaran, APP

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 143

Case Title: Sri K.Venkatesh v. The Principal Secretary to Government and Ors

Case No: Writ Petition No.5163 of 2024