Allowed

Ankita Mourya D/O- Lala Ram Mourya, W/O- Sunil Rathor v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC6 Aug 2019CRLMP/4930/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Bench allowed the criminal miscellaneous petition seeking protection of life and liberty for two married major petitioners. The Court directed the SHO to ensure no harm is caused to them by the opposing parties.

What did the court decide?

The miscellaneous petition was allowed and petitioners directed to appear before respondent No.5 who shall ensure no harm is caused by respondent nos. 7 & 8.

Ankita Mourya D/O- Lala Ram Mourya… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Rajasthan HC (2019)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 4930/2019

¶3

Ankita Mourya D/o- Lala Ram Mourya, W/o- Sunil Rathor, Aged About 24 Years, B/c- Regar, R/o- Regaro Ka Mohalla Naya Shahar Kishangarh, Ajmer. At Present A- 92 Jda Colony, Agra Road, Jamdoli, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶4

Sunil Rathor, S/o- Shiv Singh Rathor, Aged About 21 Years, B/c- Rathor, R/o- A- 92 Jda Colony, Agra Road, Jamdoli, Jaipur, Rajasthan..

¶5

----Petitioners

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp.

¶8

The Director General Of Police, Jaipur, Raj.

¶9

The Commissioner Of Police, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur.

¶10

Acp, Jaipur (West), Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur.

¶11

Station House Officer, Police Station Kho Nagoriyan, Jaipur.

¶12

Station House Officer, Police Station Kishangarh, Ajmer, Raj.

¶13

Sanjay Biluniya, S/o Dhana Lal Biluniya, Aged About 30 Years, B/c- Regar, R/o- Regaro Ka Mohalla Naya Shahar Kishangarh, Ajmer..

¶14

Anil Biluniya, S/o Dhana Lal Biluniya, Aged About 37 Years, B/c- Regar, R/o- Regaro Ka Mohalla Naya Shahar Kishangarh, Ajmer..

¶15

----Respondents

¶16

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pradeep Sharma For State : Mr. F.R. Meena, PP

¶17

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI

¶18

Judgment / Order

¶19

06/08/2019

¶20

Petitioners have preferred this misc. petition seeking protection of life and liberty.

¶21

(2 of 2)

¶22

[CRLMP-4930/2019]

¶23

Petitioners are present in person.

¶24

Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that as per the documents annexed, both the petitioners are major. They have married and Certificate of registration of marriage is annexed with the petition.

¶25

Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Smt. Nisha Tanwar vs. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Criminal Writ No.493/2016), decided on 30.11.2016 allowed the petition and directed the S.H.O. concerned to ensure necessary vigil so that no harm is caused to the life and liberty of the petitioner at the hands of those who are opposing the marriage.

¶26

I have considered the contentions.

¶27

In view of the fact that petitioners are major and are married, the misc. petition is allowed. Petitioners are directed to appear before the respondent No.5 who shall ensure that no harm is caused to the petitioners from the respondent nos. 7 & 8.

¶28

Stay application stands disposed.

¶29

(PANKAJ BHANDARI),J

¶30

Amit Kumar/119

Ankita Mourya D/O- Lala Ram Mourya, W/O- Sunil Rathor v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ankita Mourya D/O- Lala Ram Mourya, W/O- Sunil Rathor v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mali Ram Vs State

Gokul Chand Gupta Vs State and Ors.

State Vs Sahab Singh

Smt. Suman Verma, Daughter of Shri Norang Lal, Wife of Shri Mohan Singh Eichra Vs State of Rajasthan

Mahipal Sharma S/O Prahlad Vs State of Rajasthan

Vinesh Kumari W/O Ravi Kumar, D/O Indal Singh B/C Jat Vs State of Rajasthan