Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1688 (RAJ)

Umrawlal S/o Sevaram v. State of Rajasthan

2025-10-30

ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

body2025
ORDER : 1. Defect(s) pointed out by the Office stands waived. 2. Common prayer has been made in these petitions for issuing 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 an incident occurred on 25.09.2025 with the petitioners and their family members, for which FIR No.309/2025 was registeed with the Police Station Khairthal, District Khairthal- Tijara for the offences under Sections 307 , 331(6), 324(2), 326(b), 191(3) and 190 of BNS , 2023. Counsel further submits that after registration of the aforesaid FIR, the miscreants again entered into the house of the petitioner and threatened them for dire consequences, hence, under these circumstances, the petitioners approached the Superintendent of Police, Khairthal for providing protection and maintaining peace and tranquility. Counsel submits that no heed has been paid by the concerned authority, hence, under compelling circumstances, the petitioners approached this Court by way of filing these petitions. 4. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the prayer. 5. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on the record. 6. It is well settled legal position as expounded by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Lata Singh Vs. State of U.P. AIR 2006 SC 2522 , S. Khushboo Vs. Kanniammal , (2010) 5 SCC 600 , Indra Sarma Vs. VKV Sarma , (2013) 15 SCC 755 and Shafin Jahan Vs. Asokan KM , (2018) 16 SCC 368 that the 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 the Rajasthan Police Act, 2007 every police officer is duty bound to protect the life and liberty of the citizens. 7. 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. 7. Considering the arguments put forward by the learned counsel for the petitioners and looking to the fact that the petitioners have approached the Superintendent of Police/Nodel Officer by way of filing representation/application seeking protection in terms of the judgment 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) , 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. 8. It is made clear that any observation in this order shall not affect any criminal and civil proceeding initiated against the petitioners. 9. With the aforesaid observations, both the instant criminal writ petitions stand disposed of. The stay applications and all pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.