[2025:RJ-JP:50323] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 1636/2025 1. Smt. Pinky Daroga Daughter Of Shri Mool Chand Daroga, Wife Of Shri Rakesh Kumar Godwal, Aged About 26 Years, Resident Of Zahoorpura, Panchayat Chogai, Tehsil Peeplu, District Tonk (Raj.) At Present Resident Of Regaron Ka Mohalla, Boraj, Jaipur (Raj.) 2. Rakesh Kumar Godwal Son Of Shri Kana Ram Godwal, Aged About 37 Years, Resident Of Regaron Ka Mohalla, Boraj, Jaipur (Raj.) (Raj.) ----Petitioners Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor. 2. The Director General Of Police, Police Head Quarter, Lal Kothi, Jaipur (Raj.) 3. Superintendent Of Police, Tonk, District Tonk (Raj.) 4. S.h.o. Police Station Peeplu, District Tonk (Raj.) 5. Hem Kanwar Wife Of Mool Chand Dargora, Aged About 55 Years, Resident Of Zahoorpura, Panchayat Chogai, Tehsil Peeplu, District Tonk (Raj.) 6. Mool Chand Dargora Son Of Rameshawar Daroga, Aged About 60 Years, Resident Of Zahoorpura, Panchayat Chogai, Tehsil Peeplu, District Tonk (Raj.) 7. Babu Singh Son Of Mool Chand Dargora, Resident Of Zahoorpura, Panchayat Chogai, Tehsil Peeplu, District Tonk (Raj.) 8. Pappu Daroga Son Of Mool Chand Dargora, Resident Of Zahoorpura, Panchayat Chogai, Tehsil Peeplu, District Tonk (Raj. 9. Jeetram Daroga Son Of Mool Chand Dargora, Resident Of Zahoorpura, Panchayat Chogai, Tehsil Peeplu, District Tonk (Raj.) 10. Dhara Singh Son Of Ramkaran Dargora, Resident Of Zahoorpura, Panchayat Chogai, Tehsil Peeplu, District Tonk (Raj.) 11. Deepak Singh Son Of Ramesh Singh Dargora, Resident Of Village Sunari, Tehsil Niwai, District Tonk (Raj.) [2025:RJ-JP:50323] (2 of 3) [CRLW-1636/2025] 12. Surendra Singh Son Of Ramesh Singh Dargora, Resident Of Village Sunari, Tehsil Niwai, District Tonk (Raj.) ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Bheem Sain Bairwa For Respondent(s) : Mr.Amit Punia, PP Mr.Jitendra Singh Rathore, PP JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 11/12/2025 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 personal liberty at the hands of private respondent(s). 2. Counsel for the petitioners submits that both the petitioners major and they have solemnized marriage on 24.11.2025 and the same has been registered by the competent authority. Counsel 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. 3. 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, [2025:RJ-JP:50323] (3 of 3) [CRLW-1636/2025] 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 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. 4. Considering the arguments put forward by the learned counsel for the petitioners and looking to the fact that the petitioners have solemnized marriage on 24.11.2025 and the same has been registered by the competent authority and also considering 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 analyzing the threat perceptions, if necessitated, may pass necessary orders to provide adequate security and protection to the petitioners. 5. It is made clear that any observation in this order shall not affect any criminal and civil proceeding initiated against the petitioners. 6. 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 /18