[2026:RJ-JP:22877] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 863/2026 1. Sana Praveen D/o Abdul Anis, Aged About 23 Years, Resident Of Plot No. 464, Prahlad Marg, Moti Nagar West, Police Station Chitrakoot, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur-302021 (Rajasthan). 2. Vinayak Rao S/o Babu Lal Rao, Aged About 23 Years, Resident Of Near Hindustan School, Jagdish Puri, Near Millennium School, 200 Feet Bye Pass, Jaipur-302021 (Rajasthan). ----Petitioners Versus 1. State of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary, Department of Home, Government Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.). 2. Director General of Police, Rajasthan Police, Jaipur (Raj.). 3. Deputy Commissioner of Police, District Jaipur (West). 4. Nodal Officer (S.H.O.), Police Station Chitrakoot, District Jaipur (West). 5. Shahnaaz Bano W/o Abdul Anis, R/o Plot No. 464, Prahlad Marg, Moti Nagar West, Police Station Chitrakoot, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur-302021. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sameer Sharma, Adv. Ms. Sana Praveen with Mr. Vinayak Rao (present in person) For Respondent(s) : Mr. Jaiprakasth Tiwari, Dy.G.A. [2026:RJ-JP:22877] (2 of 4) [CRLW-863/2026] HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR (VACATION JUDGE) Order 02/06/2026 1. Defects as pointed out by the Registry are over-ruled. 2. Both the petitioners who are present in-person before this Court, are major and in support of their date of births, copies of Aadhaar card and marksheet of Class 'X' of petitioner No.1 have been filed as Annexure-1 and Aadhaar card and Birth Certificate of petitioner No.2 have been filed as Annexure-2. 3. Petitioners have also been duly identified by their respective 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.5, as they are apprehending danger to their life and liberty from the said private respondent. 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 23.05.2026 (Annexure-3). Learned counsel further submits that the private respondent 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 specifically submits that both the petitioners are unmarried. The said fact is further [2026:RJ-JP:22877] (3 of 4) [CRLW-863/2026] confirmed by the parties, who are present in person before this Court. 8. 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 respondent has no right to harass, much less threaten the petitioners and take law in her 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. 9. Learned Deputy Government Advocate submits that appropriate directions be issued. 10. As the order intended to be passed herein is non-prejudicial to the private respondent, no notices are required to be issued to her. 11. 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 [2026:RJ-JP:22877] (4 of 4) [CRLW-863/2026] Section 29 of the Rajasthan Police Act, 2007, every police officer is duty bound to protect the life and liberty of the citizens. 12. 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. 13. 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.3–Deputy Commissioner of Police, Jaipur (West), who is directed to duly consider grievance of the petitioners and after analyzing the threat perceptions, will take all possible preventive measures and other steps as required to ensure safety and security of the petitioners and that no harm is caused to them. 14. With the said directions, the present criminal writ petition and pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of. 15. 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. (ASHUTOSH KUMAR), V.J. AARZOO ARORA /177-S.