Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Rajasthan · body

2025 DAILYLAW 42976 (RAJ)

MUSKAN DAUGHTER OF HAROON v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

CRLW/1424/2025 · 2025-11-04

Anoop Kumar Dhand

Transfer Petitionbody2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 1424/2025 1. Muskan Daughter Of Haroon, Aged About 22 Years, Resident Of Nagina(51), Mewat, Haryana-122108 At Present Residing At Ward No.2, Dev Narayan Colony, Police Station Nagar, District Deeg Rajasthan 2. Arman Son Of Sahabudeen, Aged About 19 Years, Resident Of Ward No.2, Dev Narayan Colony, Police Station Nagar, District Bharatpur, At Present District Deeg Rajasthan. ----Petitioners Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. Director General Of Police, Rajasthan, Jaipur. 3. Inspector General Of Police, Bharatpur 4. Superintendent Of Police, Deeg, District Deeg. 5. Sho, Police Station, Nagar, District Deeg. 6. Nodal Officer, Police Station, Nagar, District Deeg. 7. Haroon Son Of Mamman, Resident Of Delhi Alwar Road, Ward No.2, Ferozepur Jhirka, Police Station Ferozepur Jhirka, District Nuh, Haryana. 8. Raziya Wife Of Haroon, Resident Of Delhi Alwar Road, Ward No.2, Ferozepur Jhirka, Police Station Ferozepur Jhirka, District Nuh, Haryana. 9. Pappu Son Of Subrati., Residents Of Near Railway Station, Nagar, District Deeg, Rajasthan. 10. Mosam Son Of Pappu., Residents Of Near Railway Station, Nagar, District Deeg, Rajasthan. 11. Mustafa Son Of Ismail., Residents Of Near Railway Station, Nagar, District Deeg, Rajasthan. 12. Nizam Son Of Lallu @ Ramjan, Resident Of Char Darwaja, Near Kabristan, Jaipur, Rajasthan. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mohd. Shakir Khan (2 of 3) [CRLW-1424/2025] For Respondent(s) : Mr. Amit Gupta, PP JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 04/11/2025 1. 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 grave threat to their life and liberty at the hands of private respondent(s). 2. Counsel for the petitioners submits that prior to approaching this Court the petitioners have already submitted representations before the concerned Station House Officer /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 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 (3 of 3) [CRLW-1424/2025] representation/application seeking protection before the Nodal Officer/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 made by this Court/Nodal Officer shall not affect any criminal and civil proceeding initiated against the parties. 7. 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 KUD/176