ACHARAJ KANWAR W/O LOKENDRA SINGH D/O. SHRI NATHU SINGH, v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN
Court: High Court of Rajasthan
Bench: ANOOP KUMAR DHAND
Judgment date:
Case summary
High Court of Rajasthan judgment dated 2024-12-10. ACHARAJ KANWAR W/O LOKENDRA SINGH D/O. SHRI NATHU SINGH, v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN. Read the judgment and...
Judgment text
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S. B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 2174/2024 1. Acharaj Kanwar W/o Lokendra Singh D/o. Shri Nathu Singh, Aged About 19 Years, Resident of Village Seepura, Mahapura, Distt. Tonk. (Raj. ). presently R/o Village Kuhada, Govindpura, Rajpooton Ka Mohalla, Govindpura, Korsina, Distt. Jaipur. (Raj. ) 2. Lokendra Singh S/o Arjun Singh, aged about 22 Years, Resident of Village Govindpura, Rajpooton Ka Mohalla, Govindpura, Korsina, Distt. Jaipur. (Raj. ) Presently R/o Village Kuhada, Govindpura, Rajpooton Ka Mohalla, Govindpura, Korsina, Distt. Jaipur. (Raj. ) ----Petitioners Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through P. P. 2. Inspector General Of Police, District Jaipur (Raj. ) 3. Superintendent Of Police, Distt. Jaipur (Raj. ) 4. SHO, Police Station Narena, Distt. Jaipur (Raj. ). 5. The Deputy Commissioner Of Police, Jaipur South Jaipur (Raj. ) 6. SHO, Police Station Muhan, Jaipur City South Distt. Jaipur (Raj. ) 7.
Nathu Singh S/o Gopal Singh, R/o Seepura, Mahapura, Distt. Tonk. (Raj. ) 8. Devraj Singh S/o Gopal Singh, R/o Village Seepura, Mahapura, Distt. Tonk. (Raj. ) 9. Vikram Singh Rajawat S/o Bhanwar Singh, R/o Village Barari, Tehsil Niwai, District Tonk, Rajasthan. 10. Deepu Singh S/o Nathu Singh, R/o Village Seepura, Mahapura, Distt. Tonk. (Raj. ) 11. Madan Singh S/o Sayar Singh, R/o Village Sheikhpura, Tehsil Thanwla, District Nagaur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vijendra Yadav For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vivek Choudhary-PP (2 of 3) [CRLW-2174/2024] JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 10/12/2024 1. Defect(s) pointed out by the Office stands waived. 2. 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 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 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. 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 individuals has to be protected (3 of 3) [CRLW-2174/2024] 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 counsel 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 analyzing the threat perceptions, if necessitated, may pass necessary orders 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. The stay application and all pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Ashu/405
Source: High Court of Rajasthan. Dataset: Dattam Labs. CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.