Allowed

Purva Rana W/O Hemal Rameshsinh Chauhan D/O Vinod Kumar Rana, v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC27 Oct 2021CRLMP/6767/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a criminal miscellaneous petition filed by a major married couple seeking protection from their relatives. The Court directed the SHO to ensure necessary vigil to prevent harm to the petitioners' life and liberty.

What did the court decide?

The miscellaneous petition was allowed. Respondent No. 4 (SHO) was directed to keep vigil to prevent harm to the petitioners from their relatives.

Purva Rana W/O Hemal Rameshsinh… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Rajasthan HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 6767/2021

¶3

Purva Rana W/o Hemal Rameshsinh Chauhan D/o Vinod Kumar Rana, Aged About 28 Years, Resident Of 43/51, Tulsi Marg, Bahubali Nagar, Niwaru Road, Jothwara, Presently Residing At Villa No. 28, Akshat Meadows, Sirsi Road, Jaipur. (Raj)

¶4

Hemal Rameshsinh Chauhan S/o Rameshsinh Mohansinh Chauhan, Aged About 32 Years, Resident Of 39/3, Mohan Sinh Park Society, Naroli Road, Silvassa, Dadar And Nagar Haveli. Presently Residing At Villa No. 28, Akshat Meadows, Sirsi Road, Jaipur. (Raj)

¶5

----Petitioners

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through P. P.

¶8

The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary Department Of Home Affairs, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶9

Additional Dy. Commissioner Of Police, Jaipur (West), District Jaipur. (Raj)

¶10

Sho, Police Station Bhankrota, District Jaipur. (Raj) 5. Ramesh Sinh Mohan Sinh Chauhan S/o Mohan Sinh, Resident Of 39/3, Mohan Sinh Park Society, Naroli Road, Silvassa, Dadar And Nagar Haveli.

¶11

----Respondents

¶12

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Gauri Meena for Mr. Deepak Khandelwal For Respondent(s) : Mr. F.R. Meena, PP

¶13

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI

¶14

Judgment / Order

¶15

27/10/2021

¶16

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

¶17

(2 of 2)

¶18

[CRLMP-6767/2021]

¶19

Petitioners are present in person in the Court. As per the documents annexed, both are major. Certificate of Registration of marriage is also annexed with the petition.

¶20

Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in “ Smt. Nisha Tanwar vs. State of Raj.” (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.

¶21

I have considered the contentions.

¶22

In view of the fact that petitioners are major and have married, the misc. petition is allowed. Respondent No.4 is directed to keep vigil so that no harm is caused to the petitioners from their relatives.

¶23

Stay application stands disposed.

¶24

(PANKAJ BHANDARI),J

¶25

NIKHIL KR. YADAV /144

Purva Rana W/O Hemal Rameshsinh Chauhan D/O Vinod Kumar Rana, v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Purva Rana W/O Hemal Rameshsinh Chauhan D/O Vinod Kumar Rana, 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

Balaram Vs State of Raj and Anr.

Dharam Raj S/O Harkishan Vs State of Rajasthan

Sarafraj Mohd. Son of Late Ishaq Mohd. Vs State of Rajasthan

Umesh Yadav S/O Shri Harphool Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Smt. Laxmi Khanna Daughter of Shri Bhanwar Lal Khanna, Wife of Shri Manish Goswami, Vs State of Rajasthan

Smt Sunita Kumari D/O Shri Kamal Kumar, Wife of Shri Mukesh Bagariya, Vs State of Rajasthan