JUDGMENT P. N. DESHMUKH, J.:- Rule, rule returnable forthwith. By consent of the parties, the appeal is taken up for final hearing. 2. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioners prayed for issuance of writ of mandamus directing respondent No.2, Union of India, to provide them personal security from CISF or the CRPF or in the alternative prayed for issuance of appropriate orders directing above agencies to provide security to the petitioners. 3. Thus, the limited relief of petitioners is to provide security to them. It is alleged that petitioner No.1 is witness No.92 while petitioner No.2 is witness No.94 in Sessions Case No.771/2010, which came to be decided by the Sessions Court, Pune by its judgment and order dated 18th April, 2013, which is commonly known as "German Bakery Blast Case". Vide this judgment, accused Mirza Himayat Baig is convicted and is sentenced to death. This judgment is challenged by the accused by filing Criminal Appeal No.755 of 2013 and is pending for adjudication before this Court along with Criminal Confirmation Case No.4 of 2013 filed by the State. In the Criminal Appeal, both the petitioners had filed Intervention Application Nos. 1578 of 2013 and 1579 of 2013 respectively, inter alia praying for directions of this Court for (i) declaring the statement/evidence of the petitioners in the Sessions Case No.771/2010 to have been made by coercion, pressure and against the will of the petitioners; (ii) discarding the statement/evidence of the petitioners; (iv) recording the statement/evidence of the petitioners afresh and for conducting fresh examination of the petitioners; (iv) appointing an independent central agency/force for ensuring protection, safety and rehabilitation of the petitioners and directing such agency/force so appointed to submit timely reports of the same to the Court or to a judicial panel specifically constructed by the Court; and (v) for initiation of appropriate legal proceedings against the erring officers of the Anti Terrorists Squad who have indulged in the illegal acts as stated therein and who continue to commit these acts of intimidation and extortion against the petitioners. 4. 4. According to petitioners, vide order dated 5th December, 2013 passed in the Intervention Applications, the petitioners were permitted to adopt remedies available to them under the law seeking police protection and thus, tiled the present petition seeking directions from this Court against respondent No.1 to ensure that the petitioners and their family members are not threatened, coerced, intimated by the officials of respondent No.1/Anti Terrorist Squad in any manner, and directions to respondent No.2 to provide security to the petitioners through a central agency like the CISF or any other. This petition has also been filed to bring on record before this Court the acts of intimidation and threats that the officers of the ATS have indulged during the course of investigation and trial in Sessions Case No.771 of 2010 and to date and in spite of the petitioners being before this Court. 5. According to petitioner No.1, he knew accused in Sessions Case No.771/2010 since he was residing in the premises where petitioner was running his computer classes at Udgir and after accused in Sessions Case No. 771/10 was convicted and sentenced to death, petitioner No.1 felt very much depressed, but at the same time was scared of ATS officer apprehending that he would be falsely implicated in some case. However, two days prior to 20th September, 2013, one person by name Ashish Khetan, an journalist spoke to the petitioner about the above Sessions Case to whom petitioner No.1 informed that there was no RDX and also informed how the ATS officers had coerced and intimated him into making false statements and to give false evidence. Said person Ashish Khetan recorded petitioner's statement in spy camera and put it on the website, thereafter some officer from ATS met petitioner No.1 and asked if any journalist had met him. So also, Superintendent, ATS, Aurangabad also enquired from said petitioner whether anyone had recorded video, to which petitioner replied in negative. According to petitioner No.1, on direction of said Ashish Khetan, he came to Mumbai on 21st September, 2013. On 23rd September, 2013 he was present before the High Court and since then he was continued to be harassed and intimidated by the officers from ATS, therefore, on 24th September, 2013, he lodged complaint with Commissioner of Police, Latur for police protection. On 23rd September, 2013 he was present before the High Court and since then he was continued to be harassed and intimidated by the officers from ATS, therefore, on 24th September, 2013, he lodged complaint with Commissioner of Police, Latur for police protection. According to petitioner No.1, he had also provided Ashish Khetan the address of petitioner No.2 and that some of the officers or ATS were in Udgir since 20th September, 2013 and on petitioner returning to Udgir from Mumbai on 25th September, 2013, said officers took him to the Guest House and had informed him that since the case was over, asked him why he was now doing this and warned him that he was asking for trouble. They also informed that Ashish Khetan was a police officer and scared the petitioner, due to which he kept quite but was further harassed by the officers. 6. According to petitioner No.2, he knew accused in Sessions Case No.771/2010, since they were in same class in Vth Standard but thereafter, met him in 2006 through a common friend and both of them worked together in a Cyber Cafe at Udgir. After the pronouncement of sentence in the Sessions Case when he was in Beed, he was taken by one police constable to a man who claimed to be an IB Officer at Beed on the 17th day of Ramzan of 2013 and taking this opportunity, petitioner No.2 informed him that whole case against the accused in Sessions Case No.771/10 was false and since then he started receiving harassment at the hands of ATS Officers which also resulted in losing job of maintenance of ticketing machine and, therefore, had left for Aurangabad where he was introduced by one Kurshid Alam to Ashish Khetan informing him that Ashish Khetan was helping with the case and petitioner should tell the truth. Petitioner No.2 accordingly told the full truth and did not know that he was a journalist and was recording his statement. After his statement was recorded, it was uploaded on the website. Petitioner No.2 accordingly told the full truth and did not know that he was a journalist and was recording his statement. After his statement was recorded, it was uploaded on the website. Since then, he started receiving calls from ATS officers directing him to visit their office, due to which he got extremely scared and thus tried to contact Kurshid Alam, who had introduced him to Ashish Khetan, however, he was not answering his calls and so he contacted one of the officers of ATS at CIDCO police station where he was knowing some officer wherefrom he was taken to the office of ATS and was interrogated by the officers and was asked if he had spoken about the German Bakery case to anyone. During interrogation, officers then directly asked petitioner No.2 if he has spoken to Ashish Khetan and whether petitioner No.2 was aware that whatever was stated by him was recorded. According to petitioner, he was informed by ATS officer that they would take necessary action against Ashish Khetan and directed said petitioner to say that his recording was done by Ashish Khetan under pressure and was allowed to go. Petitioner No.2 thereafter contacted Ashish Khetan, who directed him to come to Mumbai during which period, petitioner No.2 was receiving calls from officers of the ATS, offering him job and money and in fact on 23rd September, 2013. on which day the hearing of Ashish Khetan's intervention application was fixed, he was assured an amount of Rs.1 lac to retract his statement given to Ashish Khetan and, therefore, on 24th September, 2013, petitioner No.2 filed his complaint to Commissioner of Police, Aurangabad. 7. According to both the petitioners. the intimidation is still continuing by the officers of the ATS and have thus approached this Court to invoke extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for providing security to both the petitioners from central agency like CISF or CRPF or in the alternative to pass appropriate order to appointing and/or directing either the CISF or the CRPF to provide adequate and suitable security to the petitioners. 8. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioners in support of this petition has relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of National Human Rights Commission V/s. State of Gujarat reported in AIR 2009 SC (Supp) 318 : [2009 ALL SCR 1743] pertaining to ensure a fair trial of Gujarat riot case wherein. it is observed that:- "...Fair trial obviously would mean a trial before an impartial Judge, a fair prosecutor and an atmosphere of judicial calm. Fair trial means a trial in which bias or prejudice for or against the accused, the witnesses, or the cause which is being tried is eliminated. If the witnesses get threatened or are forced to give false evidence that also would not result in a fair trial. The failure to hear material witnesses is certainly denial of fair trial." The petitioners further relied upon the note by learned Amicus Curiae in Writ Petition (Cri) No.109 of 2003 : [2009 ALL SCR 1743] in the Supreme Court in the case of National Human Rights Commission V/s. State of Gujarat & Ors. with regard to entrusting the Union of India with responsibility of providing appropriate protection to all the witnesses involved in the major trials in the State of Gujarat (including the Bilkis case) in the manner which they consider appropriate including wherever necessary by resort to the central forces and accordingly on considering the issue involved and sensitive nature of that case, special investigating team was directed to be appointed. The petitioners also relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Zahira Habibulla H. Sheikh &Anr. V/s. State of Gujarat reported in 2004 Cri. L.J. 2050 : [2004 ALL MR (Cri) 2502 (S.C.)]. In this case, which is commonly known as Best Bakery case, one of the appeal was by Zahira, who claims to be eye witness to the macabre killings allegedly as a result of communal frenzy. She made statements and filed affidavits after completion of trial and judgment by the trial Court, alleging that during trial she was forced to depose falsely and turned hostile on account of threats and coercion. She made statements and filed affidavits after completion of trial and judgment by the trial Court, alleging that during trial she was forced to depose falsely and turned hostile on account of threats and coercion. In this case, it is observed as under:- "It is not that in every case where the witness who had given evidence before Court wants to change his mind and is prepared to speak differently, that the Court concerned should readily accede to such request by lending its assistance. If the witnesses who deposed one way earlier comes before the appellate Court with a prayer to give evidence which is materially different from what he was given earlier at the trial with the reasons for the earlier lapse, that Court can consider the genuineness of the prayer in the context as to whether the party concerned had a fair opportunity to speak the truth earlier and in an appropriate case accept it...." 9. Both the respondents have opposed the petition. From the affidavit in reply of respondent No.1, it reveals that on 13th February, 2010 a powerful bomb blast exploded at German Bakery, Pune taking lives of 17 innocent persons, including 5 foreign nationals and several injured victims including foreign nationals. During the investigation, on 8th September, 2010 and on 18th September, 2010 statements of petitioner Nos.1 & 2 respectively were recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., while on 12th October, statement of petitioner No.2 was recorded before the Magistrate under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. On 4th December, 2010, a chargesheet is filed in this case and on 6th October, 2012 and 19th October, 2012, evidence of petitioner Nos.1 & 2 came to be recorded before the Sessions Court, Pune and the case came to be decided, convicting the accused and awarding him death penalty on 18th April, 2013. From the foregoing dates and events, it can be seen that right from the respective dates of recording the statements of petitioner Nos.1 & 2 on 8th September, 2010 and 18th September, 2010 till 24th September, 2013 at no point of time, the petitioners deemed it necessary to make any grievance or any complaint to anybody in respect of so called torture, coercion or threat on behalf of any ATS personnel or on their behalf. It is significant to mention that the petitioners were free persons during all this period. 10. It is significant to mention that the petitioners were free persons during all this period. 10. According to learned Special Prosecutor, one journalist by name Ashish Khetan filed PIL (ST) No.45 of 2013 making allegations against ATS in respect of the investigations of some of the sensitive matters including the German Bakery Bomb Blast case, however, in the said PIL, there is no reference about the petitioners or their alleged grievance. 11. We find that intervention applications arc filed in the confirmation case and in connected appeals arising out of the German Bakery blast case, which admittedly as of today are neither allowed nor rejected and the Division Bench of this Court vide its order dated 5th December, 2013 directed the intervention applications to be considered at the time of final hearing of the appeal. In that view of the matter, the authorities relied upon by the petitioners cannot be considered as the issue of providing security, if at all required, would arise only if the intervention applications of the petitioners pending before this Court are allowed and thus, not at this stage. Similarly, we further note that significantly, the petitioners did nothing since recording the evidence till pronouncement of judgment and it is only after filing of the intervention application by Ashish Khetan on 23rd September, 2013 before this Court, both the petitioners on 24th September, 2013 had lodged their complaints before Superintendent of police Latur and Commissioner of Police at Aurangabad, contents of both the complaints appear to be identically worded and it appears that after due inquiry, finding that there is no any threat perception to either of the petitioners, the concerned authorities have disposed of the same. It is significant to note that in fact, petitioner No.2 with reference to his complaint, dated 24th September, 2013 was contacted on telephone and was informed that he should attend the office of Crime Branch, Aurangabad for recording his statement. However, petitioner No.2 informed that he will attend the said authority as per his convenience. Said conduct of petitioner No.2 also establish that the petition filed is without any substance, as had the petitioner No.2 really had any threat perception as claimed, petitioner would have immediately acted upon the direction of the authorities approaching them particularly when he was called by them. Said conduct of petitioner No.2 also establish that the petition filed is without any substance, as had the petitioner No.2 really had any threat perception as claimed, petitioner would have immediately acted upon the direction of the authorities approaching them particularly when he was called by them. We find that both the authorities to whom complaints were lodged, on investigating the same found that neither of the petitioner have any threat perception from any one. 12. According to learned counsel for respondent No.2, CISF or CRPF, being Para Military forces of Central Government, are not meant for providing security to individuals. However, officers from the forces like Special Protection Group, National Security Guard are deployed for providing personal security to individual, like Prime Minister of India or any individual having threats from Terrorists organization that too on the recommendation of the State Government to the Central Government, as it is a State subject. Thus, according to respondent No.2, the petition is devoid of any substance. 13. The object of National Security Guard Act of 1986 can be spelt out as an Act to provide for the constitution and regulation of an armed force of the Union for combating terrorist activities with a view to protecting States against internal disturbances and for matters connected therewith. While the Special Protection Group Act, 1988 is an Act to provide for the constitution and regulation of an armed force of the Union for providing proximate security to the Primer Minster of India and the "former Prime Ministers of India and members of their families" and for matters connected therewith. Likewise, CRPF is a force like the Indo Tibetan Border Police Force Act for ensuring the security of the borders of India and for matters connected therewith. 14. Having considering above, we find no substance in this petition as even otherwise, the petitioners are apprehending threats from the law enforcement agencies of the State, the ATS officers, Maharashtra, which is a responsible machinery of the State, and thus the allegations in the petition apprehending threats to their lives at the hands of the officers of said agency are found to be afterthought and baseless. 15. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed and rule stands discharged. Petition dismissed.