[2025:RJ-JP:45300] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 653/2025 1. Vinita Chippa, D/o Sunil Kumar Chipaa, W/o Ravi Shankar Chippa, Aged About 20 Years, R/o Nathawala, Shahpura, Rajasthan 303103. 2. Ravi Shankar Chippa, S/o Mohan Lal Chippa, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Chippo K Mohalla, Tehsil Chomu, Kaladera, 303801 Jaipur , Rajastahn ----Petitioners Versus 1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Department Of Home, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariate, Jaipur. 2. Director General Of Police, Rajasthan, Police Head Quarter, Jaipur. 3. The Superintendent Of Police, District-Jaipur, Rajasthan. 4. The S.h.o. Police, Police Station Shahpura, Jaipur District, Rajasthan. 5. The S.h.o. Police, Police Station Kaladera, Tehsil Chomu, Rajasthan. 6. Murlidhar Chippa, S/o Narayan, Aged About 66 Years, R/o Nathawala, Shahpura, Jaipur. Rajasthan. 7. Puran Chand Chippa, S/o Narayan Chippa, Aged About 65 Years, R/o Nathawla, Shahpura, Jaipur. Rajasthan 8. Harish Chand Chippa, S/o Narayan Chippa, Aged About 62 Years, R/o Bagru, Jaipur. Rajasthan 9. Kamal Chippa, S/o Murlidhar Chippa, Aged About 50 Years, R/o Nathawala, Shahpura, Jaipur. Rajasthan 10. Vijay Chippa, S/o Murlidhar Chippa, Aged About 48 Years, R/o Nathawal, Shahpura, Jaipur Rajasthan. 11. Mahendra Chippa, S/o Murlidhar Chippa., Aged About 45 Years, R/o Nathawal, Shahpura, Jaipur. Rajasthan 12. Sunil Kumar Chippa, S/o Puran Chippa, Aged About 44 Years, R/o Nathawala , Shahpura, Jaipur. Rajasthan 13. Santosh Devi, W/o Sunil Kumar Chippa, Aged About 42 Years, R/o Nathawala, Shahpura, Jaipur. Rajasthan 14. Arun Chippa, S/o Vijay Chippa, Aged About 30 Years, R/o [2025:RJ-JP:45300] (2 of 4) [CRLW-653/2025] Nathawala, Shahpura, Jaipur. Rajasthan 15. Raju Chippa, S/o Vijay Chippa, Aged About 24 Years, R/o Nathawala, Shahpura, Jaipur. Rajasthan 16. Ravi Chippa, S/o Vijay Chippa, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Nathawala, Shahpura, Jaipur Rajasthan ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Aman Pareek For Respondent(s) : Mr.Amit Kumar Gupta, PP JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 11/11/2025 1. The petitoners have preferred the instant petition for issuance of necessary directions to the State official-respondents to provide adequate security and protection to the petitioners on the ground that they are facing grave threat to their life and personal liberty at the hands of private respondents. 2. Article 21 of the Constitution of India guarantees the right to life and personal liberty under the ambit of fundamental rights, and any threat to these rights constitutes to violation of the same. 3. The contents of the petition indicate that both the petitioners are of major age and they have solemnized marriage with each other on 27.04.2025, and their marriage has been registered by the competent authority as well on 05.05.2025. A certificate in this regard has also been issued and life and liberty of the petitioners are stated to be at stake at the hands of the private respondents and prior to approaching this Court, the petitioners had already submitted representations before the Nodal [2025:RJ-JP:45300] (3 of 4) [CRLW-653/2025] Officer/Superintendent of Police and the concerned Station House Officer, pursuant to the orders passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Suman Meena vs. State of Rajasthan while deciding S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No.792/2024, but no heed has been paid, hence, under the compelling circumstances, the petitioners have approached this Court. 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 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 facts and circumstances of the case and looking to the fact that the petitioners have already submitted appropriate representation/application seeking protection before the Nodal Officer as well as the 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, they may pass necessary orders to provide adequate security and protection to the petitioners. [2025:RJ-JP:45300] (4 of 4) [CRLW-653/2025] 6. [2025:RJ-JP:45300] (4 of 4) [CRLW-653/2025] 6. It is made clear that any observation in this order shall not affect any criminal and civil proceedings initiated against the petitioners. 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 Aayush Sharma /231