RAKESH TIWARI, J. Heard Counsel for parties. 2. This contempt petition has been filed against the respondents for non-compliance of the order of this Court dated 18-8-1994 passed in Criminal Misc. Application No. 3789 of 1994 Sant Ram Tiwari v. State of U. P. and others and order dated 18-12-1997 passed in Criminal Misc. Application No. 8451 of 1997 and order dated 13-12-2002 passed in Civil Misc. Modification/clarification Application No. 191298 of 2002 in Criminal Misc. Application No. 8451 of 1997 Raj Bahadur Tiwari v. State of U. P. and others. 3. A protest application was filed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 3789 of 1994 Sant Ram Tiwari v. State of U. P. on the complaint made by complainant Ravindra Kumar Tiwari who is said to younger brother of the applicant. The aforesaid protest application was allowed vide judgment and order dated 18-8-1994 with following observation : "learned Counsel for the complainant files an application alongwith certain annexures for a direction by this Court to the State Government and the police authorities for providing protection to the complainant and the members of his family through armed police guard with a shadow and a gunner at the cost of the Government during the pendency of investigation and the trial of crime Case No. 68/92 P. S. Mahobkanth, Hamirpur. I have gone through the affidavit as well as annexures thereto and find that the complainant has been making written request to the State Government as well as the other authority and police authorities to provide protection to him and his; family member as he apprehends danger from the side of six co-accused persons who have been enlarged on bail. I have gone through the affidavit as well as annexures thereto and find that the complainant has been making written request to the State Government as well as the other authority and police authorities to provide protection to him and his; family member as he apprehends danger from the side of six co-accused persons who have been enlarged on bail. The application is hereby allowed and the Principal Secretary, Home Department, Government of U. P. Lucknow is directed to direct the Director General of Police, U. P. Inspector General Police Kanpur Range, Superintendent of Police Hamirpur and the SHO Police Station Mahobkanth, District Hamirpur to provide full effective protection to the complainant and the members of his family by posting an armed police guard at his residence with a shadow and gunner on their movement at the cost of Government during investigation and till conclusion of the sessions trial in Crime Case No. 68 of 1992, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302-B I PC and 506 IPC P. S. Mahobkanth, District Hamirpur and to report the compliance of these directions to this Court on or before 26-8-1994. " 4. From Annexure-2 it appears that the petitioner moved Criminal Misc. Application No. 8451 of 1997 alleging that no proper investigation has been done by the police hence investigation by CBCID may be ordered. He also prayed that the protection of gunner issued to him be continued. Vide order dated 18- 12-1997 this Court directed the Senior Superintendent of Police, Jhansi to ensure proper protection to the petitioner and his family till pendency of investigation and trial. The Court refused to pass any order in respect of inquiry by CBCID. 5. The petitioner, thereafter again moved a Modification/clarification Application No. 191298 of 2002 (Annexure No. 6), which was disposed of in following terms. "this is an application for modification of the order dated 18-12-1997. It is alleged that two of the Principal accused have absconded and thus session trial was made a separate being session Trial No. 82 of 1994. Which is still pending. Hence the order-dated 18-12-1997 is modified and it is directed that police protection shall be given to the applicant and family member of the applicant during the pendency of that trial also. Application is accordingly disposed off. Sd/. M. Katju, J. 13-12-2002. " In compliance of the Courts order, the petitioner and his family was given police protection. Hence the order-dated 18-12-1997 is modified and it is directed that police protection shall be given to the applicant and family member of the applicant during the pendency of that trial also. Application is accordingly disposed off. Sd/. M. Katju, J. 13-12-2002. " In compliance of the Courts order, the petitioner and his family was given police protection. Now the police protection at the cost of State has been withdrawn. The order of withdrawal of police protection is as under : @hindi = Deehe ueesieew ke er ef[eter eer jjeerv keg ceej eflejeejer Heg$e jeceoeerve eflejeejer efvejeemeer ie ece lesfee Leevee cenesyeekeb " peveheo cenesyee ke er megj#ee cew efveegef e Leer~ Deeosme He$e mebkee Meemeveeosme mebkee 2156 meer Sce/6 Heg0 2 ceg0/02 efoveebke 29-11-2002 kes Devegheeueve cew efoveebke 10-12-2002 mes 6 ceen leke kes efues Ske ievej SJeb 02 Deej#eer Deejemeere megj#ee nsleg GHeueyoe ke jees iees Les~ efpeveke er Dejeefoe meceehle nes egke er nw~ Dele: metefele neske j lelke eue Hegefueme ueefve cenesyee cew Deheveer Deeceo megefveefmele ke jw lelee efjemese Jeenke kes meele Jeeheme Deees~ @hindi = 1. ns0 ke e0 S0 Heer0 jece Deemejs ievej @hindi = 2. ke eb0 jece emeeo megj#eeiee[& @hindi = 3. ke eb0 S0 Heer0 efebleeceefce megj#eeiee[& @hindi = eefleefueefhe @hindi = 1. eer jjeerv keg ceej eflejeejer ie ece lesfee ke =heee ievej megj#ee iee[& Deepe ner Jeeheme Yespew~ @hindi = n0 Dehe"veere 6. The petitioner is a big businessman. In District Jhansi he is running a Hotel Sita and has other valuable properties. To provide security to private persons is a great burden on the exchequer, particularly in the State of Uttar Pradesh, where gunners and shadow at Government expenses is considered to be status symbol. The petitioner can very well afford to have his own private security personal. It appears from the record that Sessions Trial of Case No. 68 of 1992 is pending since last more than 12 years and there has been no progress. The Government cannot be compelled to continue security of gunner/shadow to the petitioner indefinitely on the ground that the respondents are hardened criminals. 7. The security may be provided to private individually in rare and worthy cases. The incident was 12 years back and has become stale for providing continued security to the applicants as murder etc. are committed every day. 7. The security may be provided to private individually in rare and worthy cases. The incident was 12 years back and has become stale for providing continued security to the applicants as murder etc. are committed every day. The State has limited resources for providing security how much the State exchequer can be burdened can only be impugned. 8. There is no justification to continue security to the petitioner by the Government. The petitioner is a influential and rich person and can afford to have his own security. 9. For the aforesaid reasons, the contempt application is dismissed. No order as to costs. Appeal dismissed. .