AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
6 paragraphs · 231 wordsH. S. Thangkhiew, J
Mr. A.S. Dey, learned counsel has entered appearance today on behalf of the respondent No. 1.
Mr. M. L. Nongpiur, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that inspite of their best efforts they could not obtain the correct address or whereabouts of the respondent No. 2, and as such, notice could not be served. He further submits that the respondent No. 2 has since obtained bail by order dated 11.03.2025, passed by the Rajasthan High Court at Jaipur, and as his appearance could not be secured, the respondent No. 1 i.e. the concerned Police Station, may be directed to inquire and inform this Court about his whereabouts.
On the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is noted that in the order dated 11.03.2025 of the Rajasthan High Court, it is given therein, that the concerned SHO is directed to maintain a register recording the attendance of the petitioner. As such, there should be no impediment for the respondent No. 1, to secure the appearance of the respondent No. 2. As such, it is directed that the respondent No. 1, to inform this Court as to the respondent’s No. 2 address.
Petitioner is also allowed further two weeks’ time to file rejoinder affidavit to the affidavit filed by the respondent No. 3.
Accordingly, list this matter on 20th August, 2025.