IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. WJC No.692 of 2010 SACHIN KUMAR KESHRI, son of Late Ranjit Kumar Keshri, resident of Village- Chakai Bazar, P.o.- Chakai, P.S. Chakai,District - Jamui . ………………………… Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The Home Secretary, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 3. The Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna 4. The Deputy Inspector General, Munger 5. The District Magistrate, Jamui 6. The Sub Divisional Magistrate, Jamui 7. The Superintendent of Police, Jamui 8. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, (Dy. S.P.),Jamui 9. The Officer-in-charge, Police Station-Chakai, Jamui 10. Durga Pandey @ Durga Kumari Pandey @ Durga Kumari Keshri, C/0 Shambhu Nath Pandey, Resident of Village- Pandeydih, P.O.- Kiyajori, P.S.- Chakai, District – Jamui, at present resident of Village- Chabhachcha, P.O. + P.S. – Chakai, District – Jamui. 11. Shambhu Nath Pandey, S/o notr known, Resident of Village- Pandeydih, P.O.- Kiyajori, P.S.- Chakai, District – Jamui, at present resident of Village- Chabhachcha, P.O. + P.S. – Chakai, District – Jamui. …… Respondents ----------- 3. 26.07.2010 The petitioner and respondent no. 10 are present in person. Though we had not requested for the personal presence of the Superintendent of Police, Jamui We must record that his presence has extraordinarily facilitated the matter today in passing the present order. Shri Achal kumar Sinha, Advocate, files vakalatnama on behalf of respondent no. 11. In the circumstances of the present case when the petitioner and respondent no. 10 are present in person we consider it proper to accept his request with regard to the vakalatnama submitted on assurance to us that he shall be filing the requisite stamp by tomorrow. The Court has interacted with the petitioner and the respondent no. 10 also. Respondent no. 10 is stated to be presently at her parental uncle’s place where she was taken after the police started investigation into the FIR lodged by her father-in-law. She desires to proceed for her matrimonial home with the petitioner from the court room itself. Let her do so. Counsel for the respondent no. 11 assures us that as and when respondent no. 10 goes to the house of respondent no. 11 to fetch her minor child from the first marriage, respondent no. 11 shall handover custody of the minor child to respondent no. 10. Both petitioner and respondent no. 10 are employed as Teachers in Kanya Madhya Vidyalaya, Chakai in the district of Jamui. They both apprehend retaliatory action not only from the family of respondent no. 10 but also from the family of her erstwhile husband. The Superintendent of Police, Jamui has assured us that he shall be providing adequate security to the couple at Chakai for a reasonable time so that they can pursue their normal vocation. Even thereafter if the petitioner and Respondent no. 10 desire security and apply to the Superintendent of Police under the Police Act he shall consider the same in accordance with law. Both the petitioner and respondent no. 10 have also submitted that they propose to seek a transfer from the School at Chakai to a School in other district of the State where they may feel more secure because of an urban environment. If the petitioner and respondent no. 10 make a joint application to the concerned authority, we hope and expect that it shall be considered on priority in accordance with law keeping in mind that the primary ground on which they seek transfer is the serious apprehension of threat to their lives which cannot considered wholly misplaced given the facts of the case. The writ application stands disposed. (Navin Sinha,J.) (Jyoti Saran,J.) Snkumar/-