[2025:RJ-JP:1437] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No.2151/2024 1. Payal D/o Shri Pratap Singh, Aged About 19 Years, R/o 98, Balaji Vihar-18, Macheda 200 Ft. Road, Harmada, Jaipur (Rajasthan). 2. Rahul Saini S/o Shri Banwari Lal Saini, Aged About 24 Years, R/o Nallpar Ki Dhani, Tehsil Amer Chonp, Jaipur (Rajasthan). ----Petitioners Versus 1. State Of Rajashthan, Through Public Prosecutor. 2. The Director General Of Police, Rajasthan, Jaipur. 3. The Commissioner Of Police, Police Commissionerate, Govt. Hostel, M.I. Road, Jaipur. 4. The Sho, Police Station Harmada, District Jaipur. 5. Pratap Singh S/o Unknown, Residing At 98, Balaji Vihar, 18, Machda, Jaipur (Rajasthan). 6. Sushila Devi W/o Pratap Singh, Residing At 98, Balaji Vihar, 18, Machda, Jaipur (Rajasthan). 7. Mahipal Singh S/o Mangesa Singh, R/o Village Bad Nagar, Pavta, District Kotputli-Behror. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Mangal Singh Saini For Respondent(s) : Mr.Jitendra Singh Rathore, PP JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 09/01/2025 1. Defect(s) pointed out by the Office stands waived. 2. The petitoners 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 [2025:RJ-JP:1437] (2 of 3) [CRLW-2151/2024] grave threat to their life and liberty at the hands of private respondent(s). 3. 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 same. 4. 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. 5. 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 & Ors., reported in (2010) 5 SCC 600, Indra Sarma Vs. VKV Sarma reported in (2013) 15 SCC 755 & 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. 6. 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/ [2025:RJ-JP:1437] (3 of 3) [CRLW-2151/2024] 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. 7. It is made clear that any observation in this order shall not affect any criminal and civil proceeding initiated against the petitioners. 8. 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. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Aayush Sharma /455