Kamal Singh Son of Ramkhiladi, Vs State of Rajasthan

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No.1439/2025

¶3

Kamal Singh Son Of Ramkhiladi, Aged About 28 Years, Resident Of Kheri, Police Station Ramgarh, District Alwar (Raj). Aadhar No. 6850-6658-2792.

¶4

Dholi Balai W/o Kamal Singh, Aged About 18 Years, Resident Of Lilunda, Indok, Madhogarh, Tehsil Malakhera, Alwar Presently Resident Of Kheri,police Station Ramgarh, District Alwar (Raj). Aadhar Card No. 5743-5170-4398.

¶5

----Petitioners

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Department Of Home Affairs, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶8

The Superintendent Of Police, Alwar.

¶9

The Nodal Officer, Office Of Superintendent Of Police, Alwar.

¶10

Sho Police Station Ramgarh, District Alwar. 5. Ramsingh Son Of Shrawan Balai, Resident Of Indok, Madhogarh, Tehsil Malakhera, District Alwar.

¶11

Umrav Son Of Shrawan Balai, Resident Of Indok, Madhogarh, Tehsil Malakhera, District Alwar.

¶12

----Respondents

¶13

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Hemant Gajraj For Respondent(s) : Mr. Amit Kumar Gupta, PP

¶14

JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

¶15

Order

¶16

10/11/2025

¶17

Defect(s) pointed out by the Office stands waived.

¶18

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

¶19

[CRLW-1439/2025]

¶20

(2 of 3)

¶21

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

¶22

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.

¶23

The contents of the petition indicate that both the petitioners are of major age and they have solemnized marriage with each other on 08.10.2025, and their marriage has been registered by the competent authority as well. A certificate in this regard has also been issued and life and liberty of the petitioners are stated to be at stake at the hands of the private respondents and prior to approaching this Court, the petitioners had already submitted representations before the Nodal Officer/Superintendent of Police, Jaipur and the concerned Station House Officer, pursuant to the orders passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Suman Meena vs. State of Rajasthan while deciding S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No.792/2024 , but no heed has been paid, hence, under the compelling circumstances, the petitioners have approached this Court.

¶24

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

¶25

[CRLW-1439/2025]

¶26

(3 of 3)

¶27

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 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.

¶29

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

¶30

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.

¶31

(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J

¶32

Karan/237

Kamal Singh Son of Ramkhiladi, v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kamal Singh Son of Ramkhiladi, v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shyam Kumar S/O Shri Amar Singh, Vs State of Rajasthan

Satinder P. Singh S/O Late Shri Raunaq Singh Vs Registrar of Companies, Jaipur

Akash Gupta S/O Rakesh Kumar Gupta, Vs the State of Rajasthan

Kailash Chand Jain S/O Shri Phool Chand Jain Vs State of Rajasthan

Sanny Taneja S/O Shri Rajkumar Taneja, Vs State of Rajasthan

Hansa D/O Mawasi Vs State of Rajasthan