Smt Sunita Kumari D/O Shri Kamal ... vs State Of Rajasthan
2021 Latest Caselaw 6007 Raj/2

       HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                   BENCH AT JAIPUR

       S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 6777/2021

1.      Smt Sunita Kumari D/o Shri Kamal Kumar, Wife Of Shri
        Mukesh Bagariya, Aged About 21 Years, Resident Of
        Village Tajsar Khejdoliya, Tasar Badi, Tatanva, Police
        Station Sadar, Sikar, District Sikar (Raj). At Present R/o
        Village Piprali, Police Station Dadiya, District Sikar (Raj).
2.      Mukesh Bagariya Son Of Pooran Mal, Aged About 21
        Years, Resident Of Village Piprali, Police Station Dadiya,
        District Sikar (Raj).
                                                                   ----Petitioners
                                    Versus
1.      State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p.
2.      Director General Of Police, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3.      Superintendent Of Police, Sikar, District Sikar (Raj).
4.      S.h.o Police Station Sadar, Sikar, District Sikar (Raj).
5.      S.h.o Police Station Dadiya, District Sikar (Raj).
6.      Kamal Kumar Son Of Shri Ishwar Lal, Aged About 52
        Years, Resident Of Village Tajsar Khejdoliya, Tasar Badi,
        Tatanva, Police Station Sadar, Sikar, District Sikar (Raj).
                                                                 ----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kumar Sushil for Mr. Sumer Singh For Respondent(s) : Mr. F.R. Meena, PP

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI

Judgment / Order

27/10/2021

1. Petitioners have preferred this misc. petition seeking

direction of protection of life and liberty.

2. 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.

(2 of 2) [CRLMP-6777/2021]

3. 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.

4. I have considered the contentions.

5. In view of the fact that petitioners are major and have

married, the misc. petition is allowed. Respondent No.5 is directed

to keep vigil so that no harm is caused to the petitioners from

their relatives.

6. Stay application stands disposed.

(PANKAJ BHANDARI),J

NIKHIL KR. YADAV /146

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)