HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 1364/2025 1. Kumkum Sharma D/o Shri Lal Bihari Sharma, Aged About 18 Years, R/o Jagdishpur Kalan, Police Station Fefna, Post Aandhi, District Ballia U.p.. 221701. 2. Vishnu Kumar Jangid S/o Shri Jagdish Prasad Jangid, Aged About 24 Years, R/o Near Bus Station Guda Chan- draji, Police Station Guda Chandraji, District Karauli (Raj). 322213. ----Petitioners Versus 1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Public Prosecutor. 2. The Director General Of Police, Rajasthan, P.h.q. Lalkothi, Jaipur (Raj). 3. The Commissinoner Of Police, Commissionerate, Jaipur. 4. The Superintendent Of Police, Karauli (Raj). 5. The Station House Officer ( S.h.o), Police Station Guda Chandraji, District Karauli (Raj). 6. Lal Bihari Sharma S/o Shri Surendra Sharma, Aged About 45 Years, R/o Jagdishpur Kalan, Police Station Fefna, Post Aandhi, District Ballia (Up). 221701. 7. Bablu Sharma S/o Shri Surendra Sharma, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Jagdishpur Kalan, Police Station Fefna, Post Aandhi, District Ballia (Up). 221701. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vishram Prajapati For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vivek Choudhary-PP JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 03/12/2025 1. The defect(s) pointed out by the office stands cured. 2. The petitoners have preferred this petition for issuance of necessary directions to the official-respondents to provide (2 of 3) [CRLW-1364/2025] 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. 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 both petitioners are major and they have solemnized marriage with each other on 22.08.2025 and their marriage has been registered by the compe- tent authority and a certificate in this regard has also been issued. Counsel submits that the life and liberty of the petitioners are at stack at the hands of private respondents. Counsel submits that before approaching this Court the petitioners have already submit- ted representations before the Nodal Officer/Superintendent of Po- lice and 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 (S.B. Criminal Writ Pe- tition No.792/2024), but no heed has been paid, hence, under the compelling circumstances, the petitioners have approached this Court. 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, 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 (3 of 3) [CRLW-1364/2025] 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 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 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 ana- lyzing the threat perceptions, if necessitated, may pass necessary orders to provide adequate security and protection to the petition- ers. 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 pe- tition stands disposed of. The stay application and all pending ap- plications, if any, also stand disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Ashu/181