JUDGMENT Hon. K. M. Joseph, C.J. (Oral) Petitioner has approached this Court seeking following relief: “a. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents no. 1 and 2 to protect the life and liberty and to provide adequate security to the life and personal liberty of the petitioner.” 2. Briefly put, the case of the petitioner is as follows: The petitioner preferred an appeal against the judgment passed by II Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun, which is still pending. It is the case of petitioner that ADGC (Criminal) had persuaded him that he will be acquitted in appeal, if he pays Rs. 7,00,000/- to him and it was decided that Rs. 5,00,000/- would be given on 06.12.2016. Petitioner reported the matter to the Vigilance Department. Vigilance Department carried out trap proceedings and arrested the ADGC (Criminal) on 06.12.2016 in the court premises along with tainted money worth Rs. 5,00,000/-. When the proceeding was conducted in the court premises, there was serious law and order problem and with the interference of the top level police officers of the District along with large police force, petitioner could be evacuated from the court premises. Regarding the said incident, a separate criminal case has been lodged and subsequently, serious threats were given to the petitioner. Petitioner reported the matter to the police authorities but got no suitable response, hence, is before us. 3. We have already passed an interim order on 07.04.2017 directing protection be granted to the petitioner. 4. Today, when the matter came up, we heard Mr. Sandeep Kothari, Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. D.K. Sharma, Addl. Advocate General assisted by Mr. N.S. Kanyal, Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that though an interim order was passed, but no protection is being given to the petitioner. 6. This is refuted by Mr. D.K. Sharma, Addl. Advocate General for the State of Uttarakhand by submitting that patrolling is being done regularly around the house of petitioner. 7. In fact, it is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that even after passing of interim order, there are threats. 8. We notice that writ petition is not against any named person, as there is no party respondent also. Advocate General for the State of Uttarakhand by submitting that patrolling is being done regularly around the house of petitioner. 7. In fact, it is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that even after passing of interim order, there are threats. 8. We notice that writ petition is not against any named person, as there is no party respondent also. Having regard to the allegations raised in the writ petition, it is clear beyond doubt in our mind that the petitioner must be given protection. 9. From the submissions made, what we made out is that petitioner essentially prays that he should be provided protection apparently in the form of a gunner so that petitioner feels protected. 10. In the circumstances, we dispose of the writ petition as follows: i. Interim order is made absolute. ii. We direct that petitioner will be given effective protection for his life and personal liberty. With regard to the prayer that he must be given a gunner, we also permit him to move respondent no. 2 within a period of three days from today. If such request is made, respondent no. 2 will consider the same, both in accordance with law and also keeping in view serious allegations, which have been made by the petitioner. Needless to say there is a clear cut duty on the part of the respondent no. 2 to see that petitioner will remain protected in view of threats received by him.