NASEEMA BANO vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND Advocate - G.A. — WPCRL/536/2026

Case under Under Article 226 of the Constituion of India Section 226. Disposed: Contested--DISPOSED on 25th March 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: UKHC010045792026

Filing Number

WPCRL/2144/2026

Filing Date

23-Mar-2026

Registration No

WPCRL/536/2026

Registration Date

23-Mar-2026

Judge

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Thapliyal

Coram

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Thapliyal

Bench Type

Single Bench

Category

MISC WRIT PETITION ( 2 )

Sub-Category

CRIMINAL WRIT FOR PROTECTION ( 6 )

Judicial Branch

ALL SECTIONS (CIVIL AND CRIMINAL)

Decision Date

25-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--DISPOSED

Last updated 16-Apr-2026

Acts & Sections

Under Article 226 of the Constituion of India Section 226

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.NASEEMA BANO

    Adv. SHARIQ KHURSHID

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.STATE OF UTTARAKHAND Advocate - G.A.

  2. 2.SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE

    Adv. G.A.

  3. 3.S.H.O

    Adv. G.A.

  4. 4.SAMSHAD MOHAMMAD

  5. 5.ABDUL SALAM

  6. 6.MOHAMMAD RAFEEQ

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 25-Mar-2026

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rakesh ThapliyalView PDF

    Summary The court disposed of the writ petition by directing both petitioners to appear before the concerned Station House Officer (SHO) for threat assessment. The judge held that if the SHO finds credible threat perception from the respondents (the petitioners' relatives), appropriate steps would be taken to protect the petitioners' life and liberty, rather than issuing direct mandamus for security. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 25-Mar-2026

    Fresh Cases For Admission -3

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Thapliyal

  4. 23-Mar-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. WPCRL/536/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Summary The court disposed of the writ petition by directing both petitioners to appear before the concerned Station House Officer (SHO) for threat assessment. The judge held that if the SHO finds credible threat perception from the respondents (the petitioners' relatives), appropriate steps would be taken to protect the petitioners' life and liberty, rather than issuing direct mandamus for security. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case