Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Rajasthan · body

2025 DAILYLAW 23624 (RAJ)

NAHANKI NATH AND ORS v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS

CRLW/241/2016 · 2025-01-02

Anoop Kumar Dhand

Transfer Petitionbody2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

[2025:RJ-JP:235] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 241/2016 1. Nahanki Nath w/o Mukesh Kumar Yogi, d/o Nandkishore Nath, aged 18 years, resident of Village Sakatpura, Tehsil Nainwa, District Bundi, (RAJ) present resident of Ward No.1, Village Nadiya (Sangrampura), Tehsil- Uniyara, Post. Roopwas, District Tonk. (RAJ) --PETITIONER 2. Mukesh Kumar Yogi s/o Kedar Nath, aged about 24 years, resident of Ward No.1, Village Nadiya (Sangrampura), Tehsil- Uniyara, Post. Roopwas, District Tonk. (Raj) 3. Chiran Ji Lal Yogi s/o Kedar nath, aged about 28 years, resident of Ward No.1, Village Nadiya (Sangrampura), Tehsil- Uniyara, Post. Roopwa, District Tonk. (Raj) 4. Shankar Lal Yogi s/o Kedar nath, aged about 32 years, resident of Ward No.1, Village Nadiya (Sangrampura), Tehsil Uniyara, Post. Roopwas, District Tonk. (Raj) ----Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Rajasthan through P. P. 2. The State of Rajasthan through its Secretary Department of Home Affairs, Government Secretariat, Jaipur. 3. Superintendent of Police, District Bundi. (RAJ) 4. SHO, Police Station Karvar, District Bundi. (Raj) 5. Superintendent of Police, District Tonk. (RAJ) 6. SHO, Police Station Banetha, District Tonk. (Raj) ----Respondent 7. Kishan Gopi S/O Hardev Nath, Resident of Village Sakatpura, P.S. Karvar, District Bundi. (Raj) -----Complainant Respondent For Petitioner(s) : None present For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vivek Choudhary, PP JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order [2025:RJ-JP:235] (2 of 2) [CRLW-241/2016] 02/01/2025 1. By way of filing of this petition, the petitioners are seeking directions against the State-respondents for providing protection from the private respondent. 2. The instant petition was preferred way back in the year 2016, thereafter, more than eight years have passed, now the apprehension of danger is not there, hence, under these circumstances, the instant petition has become infructuous. 2. The criminal writ petition is dismissed as having become infructuous. The stay application and all pending applications, if any, also stand dismissed. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J KuD/313