Strongly criticizing the notion of a witness having to bear the cost of their protection in a murder case, the Bombay High Court, on Thursday, called upon the Maharashtra government to clarify whether it would provide free-of-cost protection to the witness as part of the witness protection program.
During the case's proceedings, a two-judge bench at the Bombay High Court, comprising Justices Ajay Gadkari and Sharmila Deshmukh, emphatically stated, "Either provide police protection or guarantee his life."
The bench inquired, "So, are the authorities ensuring his safety? His son fell victim to murder, rendering him susceptible to threats. What about the Witness Protection Act? Why isn't he receiving protection?"
The witness had undergone a threat perception assessment after receiving extortion demands totalling Rs 10 lakh from a member of the Manchester gang via a threatening phone call in 2002. This matter was duly reported to the Thane police.
In 2003, the witness and their family members were subjected to physical assault, following which they received police protection. However, in 2007, one of the witness's sons was murdered, and the other son was an eyewitness to the tragic incident.
Subsequently, Thane Police arrested several suspects from the Manchekar gang, although they were ultimately granted bail.
Advocates Sanjeev Sawant and Samiksha Mane, representing the witness, informed the court that over the years, the accused had been released on bail, and the petitioner was once again receiving threats.
In the ongoing murder trial, out of the 38 witnesses summoned, only 14 have provided their testimony, with the petitioner yet to depose in court.
In 2016, the witness was informed that they would have to bear the cost of their protection, amounting to nearly eight lakh rupees for that year. The witness, a social worker, corresponded with the government, asserting that their monthly income was less than Rs 40,000, making it unfeasible to afford the specified amount.
However, the Maharashtra government did not respond to the petitioner's pleas. In March 2023, the witness's protection was withdrawn, and the following month, they received a communication from the government requesting payment.
Following the government's directive, the petitioner complied with the payment for three months. However, they subsequently approached the Bombay High Court, contending that under the witness protection program, they should not be held responsible for financing their own protection.
Prosecutor Sangeeta Shinde, representing the Maharashtra government, submitted on Thursday that the petitioner was not an eyewitness to the 2007 case. She also reiterated that the witness had not made payments for their previous protection.
Nonetheless, the bench asserted, "Guarantee his safety. We are not asking for anything else. The prior order acknowledges a perceived threat. He is not an accused but the father of a brutally murdered individual."
Shinde requested an extension until September 21 to seek guidance, indicating that the witness had already made protection payments. The court granted this extension while instructing the petitioner to submit the required amount.
Â
