ORDER

1. Mr Gopal Subramanium, learned Senior Counsel resumed his arguments at 10.45 a.m. Crl. MPs. Nos. 2030-32 of 2005 in Crl. As. Nos. 376-78 of 2004

2. As the hearing of the case was going on the respondent applicant S.R. Geelani was shot at near the residence of his advocate in the night of 8-22005. Disturbed by this incident, we wanted to have a report from the police authorities regarding the steps taken in the matter of investigation. A report has been placed before us in a sealed cover which we have perused.

3. An application was filed on behalf of the said respondent applicant S.R. Geelani for seeking a direction to entrust the investigation to an independent agency such as CBI. As it would not be appropriate for the court hearing the criminal appeal to deal with an application of this nature especially when other remedies are open to the party, we decline to pass any orders on this nor express any view thereof. We may add that the learned counsel appearing for the respondent applicant has also stated that the said relief will be pursued, if necessary, by seeking recourse to appropriate remedy. We may, however, record that the learned Senior Counsel has expressed serious objection to the terminology used in para 5 of Crl. MPs Nos. 2030-32 of 2005 and he stoutly denied the allegations that the investigation was not fair or that the Delhi Police cannot be trusted.

4. We made queries from the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the State as well as the learned counsel appearing for the respondent applicant S.R. Geelani in regard to the steps to be taken to ensure the safety of the respondent applicant. Learned counsel for the respondent applicant S.R. Geelani has submitted that in view of certain apprehensions of her client a against the Delhi Police, Rajasthan Police or some other police personnel may provide security to the respondent applicant at his house or at the place of his stay. It is brought to our notice that the respondent S.R. Geelani has since been discharged from the hospital and is staying at his advocates house. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the State has stated that the police officials are in fact keen on providing sufficient security to the respondent S.R. Geelani and that he would give suitable advice to the Commissioner of Police regarding deployment of police personnel other than the Delhi Police. In fact, it is stated, after the Court resumed after the lunch, that the Commissioner of Police has expressed his willingness to provide suitable security and the same is recorded.

5. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondent S.R. Geelani that the police personnel who may be visiting the respondent applicant S.R. Geelani at the residence of his advocate with whom he is staying will have to disclose their identity. Learned Senior Counsel for the State states that this request will also be communicated to the Commissioner of Police.

6. Applications are closed with above observations.

7. The report submitted by the learned Senior Counsel has to be kept in the safe custody of the Registrar under a sealed cover.

8. Mr Gopal Subramanium, learned Senior Counsel was on his legs when the Court rose for the day. The matter remained part-heard.

Court Masters