Dismissed

Vanshika Soni D/O Shri Gopal Soni, v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC10 Dec 2024CRLW/2182/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Rajasthan High Court directed police officers to examine threat perceptions and provide adequate security to petitioners facing grave threats, following prior court orders and fundamental rights under Article 21.

What did the court decide?

Police officers directed to analyze threat perceptions and pass necessary orders to provide adequate security and protection to petitioners.

Vanshika Soni D/O Shri Gopal Soni… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JP:50774]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 2182/2024

¶4

Vanshika Soni D/o Shri Gopal Soni, Aged About 18 Years, R/o Kustala, District Sawai Madhopur, Presently R/o Railway Colony, Sawai Madhopur.

¶5

Ashish Rajora S/o Shri Chhitarmal Rajora, R/o Subhash Nagar, Railway Colony, Sawai Madhopur.

¶6

----Petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department Of Home Affairs, And Justice, Secretariat Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶9

Superintendent Of Police, Sawai Madhopur.

¶10

Station House Officer, Police Station Kotwali, Sawai Madhopur.

¶11

Gopal Soni S/o Ramdhan Soni, R/o Railay Colony, Sawai Madhopur.

¶12

Geeta Soni W/o Gopal Soni, R/o Railay Colony, Sawai Madhopur.

¶13

Montu Soni S/o Gopal Soni, R/o Railay Colony, Sawai Madhopur.

¶14

Ratan Soni S/o Ramdhan Soni, R/o Railay Colony, Sawai Madhopur.

¶15

----Respondents

¶16

For Petitioner(s) : Ms.Swati Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr.Vivek Choudhary, PP & Mr.Manvendra Singh-PP

¶17

JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

¶18

Order

¶19

10/12/2024

¶20

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

[2024:RJ-JP:50774]

[CRLW-2182/2024]

(2 of 3)

grave threat to their life and liberty at the hands of private respondent(s).

¶25

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.

¶26

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.

¶27

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 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.

¶28

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

(3 of 3)

[2024:RJ-JP:50774]

[CRLW-2182/2024]

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.

¶33

It is made clear that any observation in this order shall not affect any criminal and civil proceeding initiated against the petitioners. 7. 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.

¶34

(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J

¶35

Aayush Sharma /407

Vanshika Soni D/O Shri Gopal Soni, v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vanshika Soni D/O Shri Gopal Soni, v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Banwari Lal S/O Shri Nanuram, Vs State of Rajasthan

Akshay Chand Dadhich S/O Shri Ambrishchand Dadhich, Vs State of Rajasthan

Surajbhan Kumawat S/O Shri Jagdish Prasad Kumawat, Vs State of Rajasthan

Heera Lal S/O Kishnaram, Vs State of Rajasthan

Shama Parveen D/O Emamudeen W/O Jitender Rana @ Javed Vs Jitender Rana @ Javed S/O Shri Roshan Rana

Nirbhay Singh S/O Bhagat Singh, Vs State of Rajasthan