UKHC010099562026 2026:UHC:5013-DB SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS HABC/21/2026 Mehsar Jaha --Petitioner Versus State Of Uttarakhand & Others --Respondent Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. Hon’ble Siddhartha Sah, J. Mr. Ankurit Raj David, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. Mr. B.N. Molakhi, learned D.A.G. for the State. 3. Mr. Shariq Khurshid, learned counsel for the respondent no.4. 4. In this Habeas Corpus Petition, the petitioner seeks corpus of her daughter Kausar Jahan, which according to the petition, has been illegally detained by respondent no.4. 5. Heard and perused the record. 6. The petitioner herself has filed copy of the order dated 24.04.2026, passed by Coordinate Bench of this Court in WPCRL No. 737 of 2026, Kausar Jahan and Another Vs. Senior Superintendent of Police and Others, (“the First Petition”) which reveals that the corpus Kausar Jahan and one Noor Mohammad had sought adequate protection from this Court on the ground that she apprehends threat at the hands of UKHC010099562026 2026:UHC:5013-DB respondent nos. 3 to 8 of the first petition. 7. In para 8 and 9 of the order dated 24.04.2026, this Court in the first petition has ordered as follows :- “8. Since both of the petitioners are major and married with each other and if there is threat perception from respondent nos. 3 to 8, then, in such an eventuality, the State administration is under legal obligation to assess such threat and take appropriate steps to secure their life and liberty. 9. In such view of the matter, the instant writ petition is disposed of finally with the direction to the SSP, Udham Singh Nagar – respondent no. 1 to make an assessment of the threat perception and if he comes to the conclusion that there is any threat from respondent nos. 3 to 8, take appropriate steps. Simultaneously, SHO, Police Station – Jaspur, District – U.S. Nagar, is also directed to call upon respondent nos. 3 to 8 and advise them not to take law in his hand” 8. Learned counsel for the parties admits that the petitioner in the instant case was respondent no.4 in the first petition. Since in the first petition, the corpus and Noor Mohammad have been provided protection; they had appeared before the Court, therefore, in the instant petition, the corpus Kausar Jahan may not be asked to be produced before this Court. 9. Hence, there is no reason to proceed further in this writ petition. It stands disposed of accordingly. (Siddhartha Sah, J.) (Ravindra Maithani, J.) 17.06.2026 Shiv/