Rubina Bano And Another vs State Of Haryana And Others

Kirti Singh, J

Prayer in the present petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for directing official respondents to protect the life and liberty of the petitioners who apprehend threat at the hands of private respondents.

A reply dated 08.07.2024 by way of an affidavit of Sanjeev Balhara, HPS, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Ellenabad, has already filed on behalf of the respondent-State by the learned counsel for the State.

Learned State counsel while referring to Paragraph No.5 of reply submits that now there is no apprehension of threat to the life and liberty of the petitioners, therefore, present petition is infructuous. Paragraph No.5 of reply is reproduced as under :

“5. That it is further submitted that on 22.6.2024, Enquiry Officer also contacted with the Salamudin / respondent no.4 (father of Rubina Bano) at his Mobile No.90019- 25771 from the Mobile no.88140-11659, but respondent no.4 shown his inability to come to Police Station, Rania to join the Enquiry proceedings. However private respondent no.4 (Salamudin) telephonically said that he has no objection about the joint living of petitioners (Rubina and Rahul) and that he will never interfere in their personal life in any manner .”

Be that as it may, this Court has gone through the reply filed by the State and has noticed that due attention and care has been given to the grouse of the petitioners.

In view of the stand of the parties, at this stage, there is nothing left in the present petition to adjudicate on the issue of giving any direction to protect the lives and liberty of the petitioners. Hence, petition stands disposed of.