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.

Case disposed

CNR: UKHC010097342026

Filing Number

WPCRL/4661/2026

Filing Date

03-Jun-2026

Registration No

WPCRL/1043/2026

Registration Date

03-Jun-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

04-Jun-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--ALLOWED

Last updated 05-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Under Article 226 of the Constituion of India Section 226

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.SAKSHI YADAV

    Adv. MUKESH SINGH RAWAT

  2. 2.PANKAJ RAUTELA

Respondent(s)

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

  2. 2.STATION HOUSE OFFICER

    Adv. G.A.

  3. 3.PRAMOD KUMAR YADAV

  4. 4.ALOK YADAV

  5. 5.SUDHANSHU YADAV

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 04-Jun-2026

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Alok MahraView PDF

    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.

  3. 04-Jun-2026

    Fresh Cases For Admission -3

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Alok Mahra

  4. 03-Jun-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. WPCRL/1043/2026

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.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case