SAKSHI YADAV vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND Advocate - G.A. — WPCRL/1043/2026

Case under Under Article 226 of the Constituion of India Section 226. Disposed: Contested--ALLOWED on 04th June 2026.

CNR: UKHC010097342026

CASE DISPOSED

Filing Number

WPCRL/4661/2026

Filing Date

03-06-2026

Registration No

WPCRL/1043/2026

Registration Date

03-06-2026

Judge

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Alok Mahra

Coram

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Alok Mahra

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

04th June 2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--ALLOWED

Acts & Sections

Under Article 226 of the Constituion of India Section 226

Petitioner(s)

SAKSHI YADAV

Adv. MUKESH SINGH RAWAT

PANKAJ RAUTELA

Respondent(s)

STATE OF UTTARAKHAND Advocate - G.A.

STATION HOUSE OFFICER

Adv. G.A.

PRAMOD KUMAR YADAV

ALOK YADAV

SUDHANSHU YADAV

Hearing History

Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Alok Mahra

04-06-2026

FRESH CASES FOR ADMISSION -3

Orders

04-06-2026
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Alok Mahra

Case Summary: WPCRL/1043/2026 The High Court of Uttarakhand granted protection to two adult petitioners (Sakshi Yadav and Pankaj Rautela) who belong to different castes but intend to marry each other. The court found they face persistent threats from family members and directed the local police to assess threat perception and provide necessary protection while counseling opposing parties against coercion or interference. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: WPCRL/1043/2026 The High Court of Uttarakhand granted protection to two adult petitioners (Sakshi Yadav and Pankaj Rautela) who belong to different castes but intend to marry each other. The court found they face persistent threats from family members and directed the local police to assess threat perception and provide necessary protection while counseling opposing parties against coercion or interference. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

Explore other courts

Search Another Case