[2026:RJ-JP:26974] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No.1756/2021 URN: CRLMP / 3156U / 2021 1. Akta Kharawal W/o Rajendra Kumar Kahar D/o Dhanji Kharwal, Aged About 23 Years, R/o Kharwal Keer Dhani, Bichhauchh, Ps Batoda, District Sawai Madhopur. 2. Rajendra Kumar Kahar S/o Ramkesh Kahar, R/o Keer Dhani, Bichhauchh, PS Batoda, District Sawai Madhopur. ----Petitioners Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor. 2. Superintendent Of Police, District Sawai Madhopur. 3. S.H.O. Police Station Batoda, District Sawai Madhopur. 4. Vikash S/o Dhanji, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Kharwal Keer Dhani, Bichhauchh Ps Batoda District Sawai Madhopur. 5. Roopram S/o Prahlad, Aged About 55 Years, R/o Kharwal Keer Dhani, Bichhauchh Ps Batoda District Sawai Madhopur. 6. Sitaram S/o Prahlad, Aged About 52 Years, R/o Kharwal Keer Dhani, Bichhauchh Ps Batoda District Sawai Madhopur. 7. Harkesh S/o Lallu, Aged About 42 Years, R/o Kharwal Keer Dhani, Bichhauchh Ps Batoda District Sawai Madhopur. 8. Mukat S/o Kajod, Aged About 57 Years, R/o Kharwal Keer Dhani, Bichhauchh Ps Batoda District Sawai Madhopur. 9. Dhanji S/o Ramsahay, Aged About 55 Years, R/o Kharwal Keer Dhani, Bichhauchh Ps Batoda District Sawai Madhopur. 10. Jai Singh S/o Roopram, R/o Kharwal Keer Dhani, Bichhauchh Ps Batoda District Sawai Madhopur. 11. Raju S/o Harkesh, R/o Kharwal Keer Dhani, Bichhauchh Ps Batoda District Sawai Madhopur. 12. Pawan S/o Madan, R/o Kharwal Keer Dhani, Bichhauchh Ps Batoda District Sawai Madhopur. 13. Kamlesh S/o Kanji, R/o Kharwal Keer Dhani, Bichhauchh [2026:RJ-JP:26974] (2 of 4) [CRLMP-1756/2021] Ps Batoda District Sawai Madhopur. 14. Mohan S/o Ramcharan, R/o Kharwal Keer Dhani, Bichhauchh Ps Batoda District Sawai Madhopur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Krishna Singh for Mr. Brahm Singh Gurjar For Respondent(s) : Mr. Manvendra Singh Shekhawat, PP JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 15/07/2026 1. The instant criminal misc. petition has been preferred by the petitioners with the following prayer:- “It is, therefore, most humbly prayed that Your Lordships may graciously be pleased to admit and allow this Cr. Misc. Petition and the respondents may kindly be directed not to harass torture and humiliate the petitioners. Further the respondent authorities may kindly be directed to protect the matrimonial life of the petitioners. Any other order or direction, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper, be also passed in favour of the petitioners.” 2. By way of filing the instant criminal misc. petition, a prayer has been made for issuing directions to the official-respondents to provide adequate security and protection to the petitioners 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 the petitioners have solemnised marriage with each other, but their family members are not happy with the same and are threatening them to face the consequences, hence, under these circumstances, the petitioners have approached this Court seeking appropriate directions. Learned [2026:RJ-JP:26974] (3 of 4) [CRLMP-1756/2021] counsel submits that an interim order was passed on 15.03.2021 directing the SHO, Police Station Batoda, District Sawai Madhopur to ensure that no harm is caused to the life and liberty of the petitioners from their family members. 4. It has been apprised at Bar that the aforesaid interim order is still under currency. More than five years have passed thereafter, the perceived threat might have been over now. Even if the petitioners still apprehend any kind of threat to their life and liberty, they would be at liberty to submit a representation before the concerned Nodal Officer/Superintendent of Police in light of the judgment 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. 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 personal liberty of the individual 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. In case, such representation is submitted by the petitioners, 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 [2026:RJ-JP:26974] (4 of 4) [CRLMP-1756/2021] perceptions, if necessitated, necessary steps may be taken to provide adequate security and protection to the petitioners. 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 petition stands disposed of. All pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J 106/Karan Bhutani/531