VIMALA v. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN
Court: High Court of Rajasthan
Bench: ANOOP KUMAR DHAND
Judgment date:
Case summary
High Court of Rajasthan judgment dated 2026-08-06. VIMALA v. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.
Judgment text
[2026:RJ-JP:37384] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18628/2026 CNR: RJHC010790872026 | URN: CW / 32145U / 2026 1. Vimala D/o Shri Anna Ram W/o Shri Gorkha Ram, Aged About 19 Years, Resident Of Siyagpura, Lilsar District Barmer(Raj. ). 2. Gorkha Ram S/o Rugha Ram, Aged About 27 Years, Resident Of Chuli Dugari, Chohatan District Barmer(Raj. ). ----Petitioners Versus 1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Ministry Of Home Affairs, Jaipur (Raj. ). 2. The Superintendent Of Police, Barmer (Raj. ). 3. Station House Officer, Police Station Chohatan, District Barmer (Raj. ). 4. Dharma Ram S/o Shri Anna Ram, Resident Of Siyagpura, Lilsar District Barmer(Raj. ). 5. Teja Ram S/o Shri Rawata Ram, Resident Of Siyagpura, Lilsar District Barmer(Raj. ). 6. Lala Ram S/o Shri Likhama Ram, Resident Of Siyagpura, Lilsar District Barmer (Raj. ). 7. Dharma Ram S/o Shri Gomad Ram, Resident Of Siyagpura, Lilsar District Barmer (Raj. ). 8.
Bhura Ram S/o Shri Veda Ram, Resident Of, Lilsar Ps Chohatan District Barmer (Raj. ). 9. Sama Ram S/o Shri Rawata Ram, Resident Of Lilsar Ps Chohatan District Barmer (Raj. ). 10. Pappu Jakhar S/o Shri Rama Ram, Resident Of Dharasar Ps Chohatan District Barmer (Raj. ). 11. Jogi Siyag D/o Shri Likhama Ram, Resident Of Namalum Ps Chohatan District Barmer (Raj. ). ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shaitan Singh Kheechar For Respondent(s) : [2026:RJ-JP:37384] (2 of 3) [CW-18628/2026] JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 06/08/2026 1. The petitioners have preferred the instant 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 the private respondents. 2.
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. 3. Contents of the instant petition indicates that both the petitioners are major and they have solemnized their marriage on 01. 08. 2026 and their marriage has been registered by the competent authority and a certificate in this regard has also been issued. It has been averred in the instant petition that the life and personal liberty of the petitioners are at stake at the hands of the private respondents. 4. 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 and the order passed by this Court in the case of Suman Meena vs.
State of Rajasthan (S. B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 792/2024, decided on 02. 08. 2024) that the life and personal liberty of the individuals has to be protected, except according to procedure established by [2026:RJ-JP:37384] (3 of 3) [CW-18628/2026] 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. 5. The petitioners may submit a representation before the SHO of the concerned Police Station in relation to protecting their life and personal liberty, as enshrined under the Constitution of India. 6.
Considering the above aspect of the matter, 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 received by the petitioners and after taking into account the representation so submitted by the petitioners, if any, the Officers concerned may pass necessary orders to provide adequate security and protection to the petitioners. If protection has already been provided to the petitioners and the same is still continuing, then the SHO may further consider as to whether the said police protection is still required or not. 7. It is made clear that any observation made in this order shall not affect any criminal and civil proceeding initiated against the petitioners. 8. With the aforesaid observations, the instant civil writ petition stands disposed of. The stay application and all pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J 370/Karan
Source: High Court of Rajasthan. Dataset: Dattam Labs. CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.