HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 1565/2025 1. Anjali D/o Shyam Singh, Aged About 20 Years, Resident Of Ward No. 5, Raigar Mohalla, Nagar, District Bharatpur, Present District Deeg (Raj.). Aadhar No. 2791-5012-9484 2. Rahul Son Of Rajjo, Aged About 21 Years, Resident Of Ward No. 5, Raigar Mohalla, Nagar, District Bharatpur, Present District Deeg (Raj.). Aadhar No. 9660-6975-6506 ----Petitioners Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Depart- ment Of Home Affairs, Government Of Rajasthan, Secre- tariat, Jaipur. 2. The Superintendent Of Police, Deeg. 3. The Nodal Officer, , S.p. Office, Deeg. 4. Sho Police Station Nagar, District Deeg. 5. Shyam Singh Son Of Kishorilal, Resident Of Resident Of Ward No. 5, Raigar Mohalla, Nagar, District Bharatpur, Present District Deeg. 6. Pradhan Son Of Kishorilal, Resident Of Resident Of Ward No. 5, Raigar Mohalla, Nagar, District Bharatpur, Present District Deeg. 7. Bablu Son Of Kishorilal, Resident Of Resident Of Ward No. 5, Raigar Mohalla, Nagar, District Bharatpur, Present Dis- trict Deeg. 8. Pintu Son Of Kishorilal, Resident Of Resident Of Ward No. 5, Raigar Mohalla, Nagar, District Bharatpur, Present Dis- trict Deeg. 9. Baljeet Son Of Kishorilal, Resident Of Resident Of Ward No. 5, Raigar Mohalla, Nagar, District Bharatpur, Present District Deeg. 10. Yogesh Son Of Baljeet, Resident Of Resident Of Ward No. 5, Raigar Mohalla, Nagar, District Bharatpur, Present Dis- trict Deeg. 11. Mahesh Son Of Rodu, Resident Of Resident Of Ward No. 5, Raigar Mohalla, Nagar, District Bharatpur, Present Dis- trict Deeg. (2 of 3) [CRLW-1565/2025] 12. Dinesh Son Of Khubilal, Resident Of Village Karoli, District Alwar. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ankit Khandelwal For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vivek Choudhary-PP JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 02/12/2025 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 grave threat to their life and liberty at the hands of private respondent(s). 3. Counsel for the petitioners submits that both the petitioners are major and they are in live-in-relationship as per Annexure-2. Counsel submits that prior to approaching this Court the petition- ers have already submitted representation before the concerned Superintendent of Police 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 (3 of 3) [CRLW-1565/2025] 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 coun- sel for the petitioners and looking to the fact that the petitioners have already submitted appropriate representation/application seeking protection before the Nodal Officer/Superintendent of Po- lice, 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 Ashu/236