[2026:RJ-JP:20320] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 740/2026 1. Chandni Baghel D/o Shri Ramesh Bagehl, Aged About 19 Years, R/o 52, Village Chhitapur, Post Pandarbhatta, District Mungeli, Tehsil Mungeli, Chhattisgarh, Presently Residing At Sammanpur, Post Khoh, Tehsil Ramgarh, District Alwar, Rajasthan. 2. Gurulakhan S/o Shri Ashok Kumar, Aged About 20 Years, R/o Sammanpur, Post Khoh, Tehsil Ramgarh, District Alwar, Rajasthan. ----Petitioners Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p. 2. The Director General Of Police, Rajasthan, Jaipur. 3. The Superintendent Of Police, District Alwar. 4. The Sho, Police Station Naugava, District Alwar. 5. The Sho, Police Station Kotwali City Mungeli, District Mungeli. 6. Ramesh Bagehl S/o Durvit Baghel, 7. Santvantin Baghel W/o Ramesh Baghel, 8. Raghuraj Baghel S/o Ramesh Baghel, 9. Raghuvansh Baghel S/o Ramesh Baghel, 10. Arjun Baghel S/o Ramesh Baghel, Respondent No.6 to 10 are residing At 52, Village Chhitapur, Post Pandarbhatta, District Mungeli, Tehsil Mungeli, Chhattisgarh. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Suresh Kumar For Respondent(s) : Ms. Arti Sharma, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUROOP SINGHI Order 13/05/2026 1. Defects as pointed out by the Registry are over-ruled. [2026:RJ-JP:20320] (2 of 4) [CRLW-740/2026] 2. Both the petitioners who are present in-person before this Court are major and in support of their date of birth, copies of Aadhaar Cards and/or Class X marksheet have been filed as Annexure Nos.1 and 2. 3. Petitioners have also been duly identified by their counsel. 4. By virtue of the present criminal writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have sought protection of their life and personal liberty from private respondents No.6 to 10, as they are apprehending danger to their life and liberty from the said private respondents. 5. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that the petitioners are living in a ‘Live-in’ relationship and in this regard they have even executed an agreement dated 06.05.2026 (Annexure-3), but the private respondents and others are not happy with their relationship and the petitioners are receiving continuous threats. 6. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that both the petitioners are major and are mature enough to take independent decision of their life. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that once the petitioners have willingly and with utmost responsibility have chosen to enter into a relationship with each other, the private respondents have no right to harass, much less threaten the petitioners and take law in their hands and given the fact that the life and liberty of the petitioners is in danger, police protection deserves to be granted to the petitioners and hence, protection is being sought. 8. Learned Public Prosecutor submits that appropriate directions be issued. [2026:RJ-JP:20320] (3 of 4) [CRLW-740/2026] 9. As the order intended to be passed herein is non-prejudicial to the private respondents, no notices are required to be issued to them. 10. It is a well settled legal position as expounded by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Lata Singh Vs. State of UP reported in (2006) 5 SCC 475, S. Khushboo Vs. Kanniammal & Anr. reported in (2010) 5 SCC 600, Indra Sarma Vs. VKV Sarma reported in (2013) 15 SCC 755 and Shafin Jahan vs. Asokan KM & Ors. reported in (2018) 16 SCC 368 that the society cannot determine how individuals live their lives, especially when they are major, irrespective of the fact that the relation between two major individuals may be termed as immoral and unsocial. Thus, 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 Rajasthan Police Act, 2007, every police officer is duty bound to protect the life and liberty of the citizens. 11. In view of the above legal position and factual averments, after perusing record and considering the submissions made, as the petitioners apprehend threat to their life and liberty, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioners have every right to seek protection of their life, limb and liberty. 12. Accordingly, this Court is inclined to dispose of the present criminal writ petition with the directions to the petitioners to file an appropriate application seeking protection before respondent No.4 – Station House Officer (S.H.O.), Police Station Naugava, District Alwar, who is directed to duly consider grievance of the petitioners and after analyzing the threat perceptions, will take all [2026:RJ-JP:20320] (4 of 4) [CRLW-740/2026] possible preventive measures and other steps as required to ensure safety and security of the petitioners and that no harm is caused to them. 13. With the said directions, the present criminal writ petition and pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of. 14. However, as a precautionary note, it is clarified that the observations made by this Court in the present order are confined solely for the purpose of disposal of the instant criminal writ petition and shall neither prejudice nor affect any civil or criminal proceedings initiated or pending against the petitioners. (ANUROOP SINGHI),J VINAY /257