- (1.) Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the State.
(2.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner earlier used to give information about the activities of the person associated with the terrorist activities and on such information the police used to act upon and therefore when the petitioner felt danger to his life at the hands of extremist he did approach the police personnel for providing security which in fact was provided initially for couple of months which was extended time to time but suddenly security was withdrawn and, therefore, petitioner again approached the police personnel for providing security but they did not respond to the request made by the petitioner and therefore, there was no option for the petitioner but to approach this Court for directing the respondents to provide security to the petitioner so that life of the petitioner be saved from the persons who have associated themselves with the extremist activities.
(3.) However, a counter-affidavit has been filed wherein it has been stated that the petitioner does have criminal background as he has been accused in three cases and as such, he cannot be provided with the security as keeping in view the criminal background petitioner's indulgence in criminal activities under the cover of security can not be ruled out.;