JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. Amit Kumar Das, counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. 2. Heard Mr. Rohit, A.C. to S.C. IV appearing for the respondents. 3. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:- (i) For quashing of the Memo No. 989 dated 07.04.2010 (Annexure-7) by which Rs. 2,70,000/- has been demanded by the respondent no. 4 against cost of Body Guard provided to the petitioner; (ii) For a direction upon the respondents to continue the body guard provided to the petitioner as the same is necessary to protect the petitioner considering the fact that he has seriously threat from the criminals; 4. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had filed one writ petition before this Court which was numbered as W.P. (Cr.) No. 239 of 2003 for handing over of the investigation of Dhanbad (Dhansar) P.S. Case No. 638 of 2003 to the Central Bureau of Investigation and vide order dated 27.01.2004 the investigation was handed over to the Central Bureau of Investigation. On account of this reason, the petitioner was getting considerable threat on his life and was also a witness in the aforesaid case. Accordingly, vide order dated 27.01.2004, a direction was issued by this Court for ensuring the protection to the witness, the operative portion of the order reads as under:- “In this situation, we are satisfied that it will be proper to dispose of the writ petition with direction to the Central Bureau of Investigation to take up and complete the investigation of Dhanbad (Dhansar) P.S. Case No. 638 of 2003 along with its abatements and conspiracy in relation to or in connection with the said offences and any other offence committed in course of the same transaction, including Jharia P.S. Case No. 330 of 2003, and complete the investigation as expeditiously as possible and proceed in accordance with the Code of Criminal Procedure. The writ petition is thus allowed with the above direction. Issue a copy of this order of Mr. Rajesh Kumar, counsel for the Central Bureau of Investigation for its implementation. However, before parting with the case, we have to refer to one aspect. An apprehension was expressed that the witnesses to these crimes are under considerable threat. As of now, though some protection is being given, by the order of the Superintendent of Police, Dhanbad, it may be ensured that the protection is continued. However, before parting with the case, we have to refer to one aspect. An apprehension was expressed that the witnesses to these crimes are under considerable threat. As of now, though some protection is being given, by the order of the Superintendent of Police, Dhanbad, it may be ensured that the protection is continued. Taking note of the circumstances obtaining, we are satisfied that there should be a direction to the State of Jharkhand, the Director General of Police and the Superintendent of Police, Dhanbad to give adequate protection to the witnesses and to ensure that their testimony is in no way sought to be influenced by any one.” Counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents were under legal obligation to ensure the life and property of the witnesses including the petitioner and accordingly there is no question of charging any amount which might have been incurred by the respondents for providing police protection to the petitioner. Counsel for the petitioner submits that as of now he does not require any police protection and therefore the petitioner is confining its relief to the quashing of the order as contained in memo no. 989 dated 07.04.2010 issued by the Superintendent of Police, Dhanbad, wherein the petitioner was asked to make payment of Rs. 2,70,000/- for the period 26.04.2009 to 28.02.2010 during which the police protection by way of deputing a body guard was given to the petitioner. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the letter has been issued on the basis of memo no. 685 dated 26.03.2010 as has been mentioned in the impugned letter dated 07.04.2010 itself. Counsel for the petitioner while assailing this order says that under the facts and circumstances of the case, it was not open to the respondents to demand any amount from the petitioner for the period of protection which was offered to the petitioner in the capacity of being a witness. He submits that during the period from 26.04.2009 to 28.02.2010, the criminal case was not closed and accordingly a body guard was provided to the petitioner. 5. Counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner was provided body guard and he is liable to pay the amount as mentioned in memo no. 989 dated 07.04.2010. He submits that during the period from 26.04.2009 to 28.02.2010, the criminal case was not closed and accordingly a body guard was provided to the petitioner. 5. Counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner was provided body guard and he is liable to pay the amount as mentioned in memo no. 989 dated 07.04.2010. He also submits that the impugned letter dated 07.04.2010 has been issued on the basis of the decision taken by the competent authority and the same does not require any interference. Counsel for the respondents agrees that it is the duty of the State to give protection to the witness of any case. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the fact that the petitioner was a witness in Dhanbad (Dhansar) P.S. Case No. 638 of 2003 and there was a threat to the life and property of the petitioner in connection with that case and also the fact that specific direction was issued by this Court in W.P. (Cr.) No. 239 of 2003 to protect the witness, therefore the State was under duty to protect the petitioner in the capacity of a witness. Said direction was to be continued till the witness had deposed in the court. This court finds that the State had a legal obligation to protect the petitioner, therefore the demand of money for the period from 26.04.2009 to 28.02.2010 as contained in memo no. 989 dated 07.04.2010 cannot be sustained in law. 7. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed and the memo no. 989 dated 07.04.2010 (Annexure-7) is hereby quashed and set aside.