Zoya Ahfaz Ali @ Gauri Eknath Bahekar And Another v. The State Of Maharashtra Thr. Pso Ps Awdhutwadi, Dist. Yavatmal And Others

2025:BHC-NAG:10954-DB 1 cr. wp 40.2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 40 OF 2025 [Zoya Ahfaz Ali @ Gauri Eknath Bahekar and anr. vs. The State of Maharashtra through P.S.O., P.S. Avadhutwadi, Yavatmal and ors.] - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ------------------ - - - Ms. Gulafshan Ansari, Advocate for the petitioners Mr. I. J. Damle, APP for the State/respondent nos. 1 and 2 Mr. P. M. Pande with Mr. A. N. Kashikar, Advocates for respondent no. 3 CORAM: ANIL L. PANSARE AND Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, JJ.

DATED : 15-10-2025.

Heard.

2.

The petitioners have approached this Court with a prayer to direct respondent nos. 1 and 2 to extend additional protection and security to the petitioners and the family of petitioner no. 1.

3.

Petitioner no 1 is daughter of respondent no. 3. She got married to petitioner no. 2, who belongs to Muslim Community. Petitioner no. 1 has adopted Muslim Religion. Accordingly, the petitioners are anticipating threats at the hands of respondent no. 3.

4.

Learned counsel for respondent no. 3 submits that he is a poor father and finds himself helpless. He is an employee of District Court, Yavatmal and cannot even think of threatening his own daughter i.e. petitioner no. 1. We accept the statement so made by respondent no. 3.

5.

We are, however, not able to understand as to how petitioners have sought protection to the family members of petitioner no. 1, one of whom is before us as respondent

2 cr. wp 40.2025 no. 3. When enquired, the counsel for the petitioners could not give any satisfactory answer for the prayer so made. 6.

Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has invited our attention to the reply filed by respondent nos. 1 and 2. He submits that these respondents have enquired into the matter and found that there is no threat to the petitioners. 7.

That being so and considering the statement made by respondent no. 3, we do not find any substance in the petition. The petition is accordingly dismissed. (Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, J.) (A. L. PANSARE, J.) wasnik