[2025:RJ-JP:23397] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 789/2025 1. Manisha Dhayal D/o Ram Singh Dhayal, Aged About 20 Years, R/o Dhani Dhayalo Ki RIICO Area, Parasrampura Tehsil Srimadhopur District Sikar Rajasthan 2. Ravindra Singh S/o Ganesh Ram Khinchad, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Kishanpura Jaipur Rajasthan ----Petitioners Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor 2. The Director General Of Police, Rajasthan Jaipur 3. The Superintendent Of Police, Jaipur Rural 4. The Superintendent Of Police, Sikar 5. The SHO, Police Station Govindgarh District Jaipur Rural 6. The SHO, Police Station Reengus District Sikar 7. Jagdish Prasad S/o Jhutha Ram Dhayal, Residing At Dhani Dhayalo Ki Riico Area, Parasrampura Tehsil Srimadhopur District Sikar Rajasthan 8. Ram Singh S/o Shambhuram Dhayal, Residing At Dhani Dhayalo Ki Riico Area, Parasrampura Tehsil Srimadhopur District Sikar Rajasthan 9. Sagar S/o Shambhuram Dhayal, Residing At Dhani Dhayalo Ki Riico Area, Parasrampura Tehsil Srimadhopur District Sikar Rajasthan 10. Mahesh S/o Jagdish Prasad Dhayal, Residing At Dhani Dhayalo Ki Riico Area, Parasrampura Tehsil Srimadhopur District Sikar Rajasthan 11. Heeralal S/o Jagdish Prasad Dhayal, Residing At Dhani Dhayalo Ki Riico Area, Parasrampura Tehsil Srimadhopur District Sikar Rajasthan 12. Shrawan S/o Jagdish Prasad Dhayal, Residing At Dhani Dhayalo Ki Riico Area, Parasrampura Tehsil Srimadhopur District Sikar Rajasthan 13. Sanwarmal S/o Jagdish Prasad Dhayal, Residing At Dhani Dhayalo Ki Riico Area, Parasrampura Tehsil Srimadhopur District Sikar Rajasthan 14. Mahendra S/o Jagdish Prasad Dhayal, Residing At Dhani [2025:RJ-JP:23397] (2 of 4) [CRLW-789/2025] Dhayalo Ki Riico Area, Parasrampura Tehsil Srimadhopur District Sikar Rajasthan ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Neetu Singh Choudhary with Ms. Shruti Singh For Respondent(s) : Mr. Naresh Gupta, Dy. GA Mr. Vivek Sharma, Add. GA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA (V. J.) Order 20/06/2025 1. The defects pointed out by the Registry is over-ruled. 2. The petitioners have preferred this petition for issuance of necessary directions to the official-respondents to provide adequate security and protection to them on the ground that they are facing grave threat to their life and liberty at the hands of private respondent(s) herein. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioners are major and they have also solemnized their marriage as evident from the Marriage Certificate dated 16.04.2025. It has been stated that the respondents No.7 to 14 and their relatives are threatening the petitioners, therefore, they have filed the instant writ petition for seeking protection and directions to the official respondents herein. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that Article 21 of the Constitution of India provides for right to life and personal liberty under the ambit of fundamental rights and any threat to the same amounts to violation of the Article 21. [2025:RJ-JP:23397] (3 of 4) [CRLW-789/2025] 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that prior to approaching this Court the petitioners have already submitted their representations before the concerned Station House Officer and the Nodal Officer pursuant to the orders passed by a Co- ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Suman Meena vs. State of Rajasthan (S.B.Criminal Writ Petition No.792/2024). Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that representation has not been decided by the Authorities. Counsel for the petitioners request for appropriate directions to be issued in favour of the petitioners. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that service upon the private respondents (respondents No.7 to 14) may be dispensed with and direction may be given to the Police Authorities to provide protection to the petitioners against respondents No.7 to 14. 7. The services of respondents No.7 to 14 are dispensed with. 8. It is a 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 the 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. [2025:RJ-JP:23397] (4 of 4) [CRLW-789/2025] 9. Considering the arguments put forward by the learned counsel for the petitioners and looking to the fact that the petitioners are major and have solemnized their marriage, and have already submitted appropriate representations 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. 10. It is made clear that any observation in this order shall not affect any criminal and civil proceeding initiated against the petitioners. 11. With the aforesaid observations, the instant criminal writ petition stands disposed of. The stay application and all pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (MANEESH SHARMA (V. J.)),J Yogesh/100