Disposed

Smt. Manju Prajapati D/O Shri Hari Prajapati @ Gudda W/O Shri Radheshyam Prajapati v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC2 Jan 2025CRLMP/5975/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought court directions for security against private respondents citing grave life threats. The High Court directed official respondents to evaluate threats and provide protection per prior orders, clarifying this order does not impinge on other proceedings before disposing of the petition.

What did the court decide?

Directed official respondents to provide security if threat perception exists after analysis; disposed of the petiiton.

Smt. Manju Prajapati D/O Shri Hari… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Rajasthan HC (2025)

¶1

[2025:RJ-JP:222]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No.5975/2020

¶4

Smt. Manju Prajapati D/o Shri Hari Prajapati @ Gudda W/o Shri Radheshyam Prajapati, Aged About 19 Years, R/o Veerpur, Tehsil Veerpur, Distt. Shyopur (Madhya Pradesh) At Present R/o Teen Bad, Karauli Police Station Kotwali Karauli Distt. Karauli Raj.

¶5

Radheyshyam Prajapati S/o Shri Ramcharan Prajapati, Aged About 22 Years, R/o Village Tetra, Tehsil Sabalgarh, Distt. Murena (Madhya Pradesh) At Present R/o Teen Bad, Karauli, Police Station Kotwali Karauli Distt. Karauli Raj.

¶6

----Petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p.

¶9

Director General Of Police, Raj. Jaipur.

¶10

Superintendent Of Police, Karauli, Distt. Karauli Raj.

¶11

S.h.o Police Station Kotwali Karauli, Distt. Karauli Raj.

¶12

Hari Prajapati S/o Shri Ramit Prajapati, Aged About 45 Years, R/o Veerpur, Tehsil Veerpur, Distt. Shyopur (Madhya Pradesh)

¶13

Pawan Prajapati S/o Shri Hari Prajapati, Aged About 20 Years, R/o Veerpur, Tehsil Veerpur, Distt. Shyopur (Madhya Pradesh)

¶14

Shriniwas Prajapati S/o Shri Ramit Prajapat, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Veerpur, Tehsil Veerpur, Distt. Shyopur (Madhya Pradesh)

¶15

Sooraj Prajapati S/o Shriniwas, Aged About 19 Years, R/o Veerpur, Tehsil Veerpur, Distt. Shyopur (Madhya Pradesh)

¶16

----Respondents

¶17

For Petitioner(s) : None present For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vivek Choudhary, PP

¶18

JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

Order

02/01/2025

[2025:RJ-JP:222]

[CRLMP-5975/2020]

(2 of 3)

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).

¶25

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

It appears 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).

¶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

Looking to the fact that the petitioners have already submitted appropriate representation/application seeking protection before the Nodal Officer as well as concerned Station

¶29

[2025:RJ-JP:222]

¶30

[CRLMP-5975/2020]

¶31

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.

¶32

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

¶33

With the aforesaid observations, the instant criminal misc. petition stands disposed of. The stay application and all pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

¶34

(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J

¶35

Karan/338

Smt. Manju Prajapati D/O Shri Hari Prajapati @ Gudda W/O Shri Radheshyam Prajapati v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Manju Prajapati D/O Shri Hari Prajapati @ Gudda W/O Shri Radheshyam Prajapati 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

Bhawana Vaishnav D/O Sanjay Sharma W/O Manjeet Saini Vs State of Rajasthan

Hanuman Choudhary Son of Shri Nandaram Choudhary, Vs State of Rajasthan

Shubash Kumar Joshi S/O Madhusudhan Vs State of Rajasthan

Nahanki Nath and Ors. Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Hariom S/O Shri Pooran Singh B/C Jat Vs State of Rajasthan

Ramgopal Meena S/O Late Shri Seduram Meena, Vs State of Rajasthan