[2025:RJ-JP:22990] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 735/2025 1. Priya Jakhar Daughter of Shri Mahendra Kumar Jakar, Aged About 18 Years, Resident of Ward No 05 Dhani Jakhiro, Hardiya Tehsil Khetri Dist. Jhunjhunu (Raj.) 2. Kamlesh Kumar Saini Son of Roor Mal Saini, Aged About 26 Years, Resident of Ward No 08 Dhani Thakrali, Post Kishorpura Via Ponkh Tehsil Udaipurwati Dist Jhunjhunu (Raj.) ----Petitioners Versus 1. State of Rajasthan, through PP 2. The Director General of Police, Jaipur (Raj.) 3. The Superintendent of Police, Jhunjhunu (Raj.) 4. The Station House Officer, Police Station, Guda Gordji, ,dist.jhunjhunu (Raj.) 5. Mahendra Kumar Jakar S/o Prabhataram, Aged About 48 Years, Resident of Ward No 05 Dhani Jakhiro, Hardiya Tehsil Khetri Dist. Jhunjhunu (Raj.) 6. Meena Devi W/o Mahendra Kumar Jakar, Aged About 45 Years, Resident of Ward No 05 Dhani Jakhiro, Hardiya Tehsil Khetri Dist. Jhunjhunu (Raj.) 7. Sunil Jakar S/o Mahendra Kumar Jakar, Aged About 22 Years, Resident of Ward No 05 Dhani Jakhiro, Hardiya Tehsil Khetri Dist. Jhunjhunu (Raj.) 8. Sunda Ram Jakar S/o Prabhataram, Aged About 55 Years, Resident of Ward No 05 Dhani Jakhiro, Hardiya Tehsil Khetri Dist. Jhunjhunu (Raj.) 9. Naveen Jakar S/o Prabhataram, Aged About 45 Years, Resident of Ward No 05 Dhani Jakhiro, Hardiya Tehsil Khetri Dist. Jhunjhunu (Raj.) 10. Ashok Kumar Jakar S/o Sunda Ram, Aged About 35 Years, Resident of Ward No 05 Dhani Jakhiro, Hardiya Tehsil Khetri Dist. Jhunjhunu (Raj.) 11. Devi Lal Jakar S/o Sunda Ram, Aged About 32 Years, Resident of Ward No 05 Dhani Jakhiro, Hardiya Tehsil Khetri Dist. Jhunjhunu (Raj.) [2025:RJ-JP:22990] (2 of 4) [CRLW-735/2025] 12. Krashan Kumar Jakar S/o Naveen Jhakar, Aged About 21 Years, Resident of Ward No 05 Dhani Jakhiro, Hardiya Tehsil Khetri Dist. Jhunjhunu (Raj.) 13. Prakash S/o Harphool Ram, Aged About 40 Years, Resident of Bagera, Tehsil Udaipurwati Dist. Jhunjhunu (Raj.) ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Omveer Singh Saini For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vijay Singh Yadav, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA (V. J.) Order 09/06/2025 1. Defects pointed out by the Registry are overruled. 2. Issue notices to the respondent(s). 3. Learned Public Prosecutor accepts notices on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 4. 4. It has been stated by the learned counsel for the petitioners that they are major having date of birth i.e. 20.05.2007 & 03.10.1998 and have performed marriage. In order to place proof of marriage on record, one certificate has been enclosed as Annex.2. It has also been stated that both the petitioners belong to different community and their parents were not agreeing for their marriage, therefore, on account of adamance and displeasure, threats have been given to them which has caused danger to their life. Counsel also submits that it is their first marriage and they have not performed any other marriage prior to the marriage in question. [2025:RJ-JP:22990] (3 of 4) [CRLW-735/2025] 5. In the light of provisions of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, they have filed the instant writ petition for seeking protection and direction to the respondents. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed on record one order dated 10.12.2024 passed by this Court in S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 2182/2024 (Vanshika Soni & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.), wherein this Court has given following directions:- "3. Counsel for the petitioners submits that prior to approaching this Court the petitioners have already submitted representations before the concerned Station House Officer and the Nodal Officer pursuant to the orders passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Suman Meena vs. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No.792/2024). Counsel submits that appropriate directions be issued in favour of the petitioners. 4. It is well settled legal position as expounded by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Lata Singh Vs. State of UP, reported in AIR 2006 SC 2522, S. Khushboo Vs. Kanniammal, reported in (2010) 5 SCC 600, Indra Sarma Vs. VKV Sarma reported in (2013) 15 SCC 755 and Shafin Jahan Vs. Asokan KM reported in (2018) 16 SCC 368 that the life and personal liberty of the individuals has to be protected except according to procedure established by law, as mandated by Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Further, as per Section 29 of the Rajasthan Police Act, 2007 every police officer is duty bound to protect the life and liberty of the citizens. 5. Considering the arguments put forward by the learned counsel for the petitioners and looking to the fact that the petitioners have already submitted appropriate representation/application seeking protection before the Nodal Officer as well as concerned Station House Officer, it is expected from the officers concerned to look into the matter in terms of the directions issued by this Court in the case of Suman Meena (supra) and ensure that after analyzing the threat perceptions, if necessitated, may pass necessary orders to provide adequate security and protection to the petitioners. 6. It is made clear that any observation in this order shall not affect any criminal and civil proceeding initiated against the petitioners." 7. In view of the above, the writ petition filed by the petitioners is disposed of with the directions that the representations filed by [2025:RJ-JP:22990] (4 of 4) [CRLW-735/2025] the petitioners before the Nodal Officer as well as Superintendent of Police shall be decided in the light of judgment of Suman Meena (supra) and they would also ensure protection against threat perception, if any, and may pass appropriate orders in order to provide adequate security and protection to the petitioners. The writ petition has been disposed of. 8. Stay application and all other pending application/s, if any, also stand disposed of. (ANAND SHARMA (V. J.)),J DIVYA /201