Indra Sevaram Rabari D/O Sevaram Rabari, Vs the State of Rajasthan — Rajasthan HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Indra Sevaram Rabari D/O Sevaram Rabari, Vs the State of Rajasthan — Rajasthan HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

The criminal writ petition was disposed of with the expectation that the officers concerned (Nodal Officer and Station House Officer) would examine the petitioner's representation in terms of the directions in Suman Meena (supra) and, after analysing the threat perceptions, pass necessary orders to provide adequate security and protection to the petitioner if necessitated.

Issue for consideration

Whether the official respondents ought to be directed to provide adequate security and protection to the petitioner, who alleges a grave threat to her life and personal liberty at the hands of the private respondents.

Court's answer

Article 21 of the Constitution of India provides for the right to life and personal liberty as fundamental rights, and any threat to the same amounts to violation thereof.

Ratio / Principle

As expounded by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Lata Singh, S. Khushboo, Indra Sarma and Shafin Jahan, the life and personal liberty of individuals has to be protected except according to procedure established by law, as mandated by Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

Key takeaways

Under Section 29 of the Rajasthan Police Act, 2007, every police officer is duty bound to protect the life and personal liberty of the citizens.ratio¶31
Since the petitioner has already submitted a representation/application seeking protection before the Nodal Officer and the concerned Station House Officer, the officers concerned are expected to look into the matter in terms of the directions in Suman Meena (supra) and, after analysing the threat perceptions, pass necessary orders to provide adequate security and protection if necessitated.ratio¶32
Any observation in the order shall not affect any criminal or civil proceeding initiated against the petitioner.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal writ petition - police protection. The petitioner, a 21-year-old woman, alleged a grave threat to her life and personal liberty at the hands of the private respondents and sought directions to the official respondents to provide adequate security and protection. The Court observed that Article 21 of the Constitution guarantees the right to life and personal liberty and that any threat thereto amounts to its violation; further, under Section 29 of the Rajasthan Police Act, 2007, every police officer is duty bound to protect the life and personal liberty of citizens, relying on the Supreme Court decisions in Lata Singh v. State of UP (AIR 2006 SC 2522), S. Khushboo v. Kanniammal ((2010) 5 SCC 600), Indra Sarma v. VKV Sarma ((2013) 15 SCC 755) and Shafin Jahan v. Asokan KM ((2018) 16 SCC 368). Noting that the petitioner had already submitted representations before the concerned SHO and the Nodal Officer pursuant to the Co-ordinate Bench order in Suman Meena v. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 792/2024), the Court directed the officers concerned to look into the matter in terms of those directions and, after analysing the threat perceptions, pass necessary orders for adequate security and protection if necessitated. Petition disposed of; it was clarified that the observations shall not affect any criminal or civil proceeding initiated against the petitioner. (Paras 24-33)

[2025:RJ-JP:47022]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 1523/2025

Indra Sevaram Rabari D/o Sevaram Rabari, Aged About 21 Years, R/o Borla, Bhanwariya, District Barmer, Rajasthan, 344706, Currently Residing At Mukesh Girls P.g. 40, Sudama Nagar Glass Factory Ke Saamne, Tonk Road Jaipur 302015

----Petitioner

Versus

The State of Rajasthan, through Principal Secretary, Department of Home, Government of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

Director General of Police, Rajasthan, Police Head Quarter, Jaipur.

The Superintendent of Police, District Jaipur, Rajasthan.

The Superintendent of Police, District Barmer, Rajasthan. 5. The S.H.O., Police Station Bajaj Nagar, Jaipur Metro IInd, Rajasthan.

The S.h.o., Police Station Bakhasar, Barmer, Rajasthan. 7. Sevaram Rabari, S/o Shree Ramaram Rabari, Aged About 55 Years, R/o Plot No. 11, Mithi Road, Gokuldham Society, Gandhidham, Kutchh Gujarat.

Gero Devi W/o Sevaram Rabari, Aged About 50 Years, R/o Plot No. 11, Mithi Road, Gokuldham Society, Gandhidham, Kutchh Gujarat.

Sunil Rabari S/o Shree Sevaram Rabari, Aged About 30 Years, Gram Panchayat Bhanwariya, Gram Borla, Tehsil Sedwa, District Barmer Rajasthan.

Naagji Devasi, S/o Shree Pancharam, Aged About 55 Years, R/o Deendva, Geeda, Faagaliya, Barmer, Rajasthan.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr.Parmindra Dadhich
For Respondent(s)	: Mr.Rajesh Choudhary, GA-cum-AAG
	Mr.Vivek Choudhary,PP

JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

[2025:RJ-JP:47022]

[CRLW-1523/2025]

(2 of 3)

Order

20/11/2025

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

The petitoner has preferred this petition for issuance of necessary directions to the official-respondents to provide adequate security and protection to her on the ground that she is facing grave threat to her life and personal liberty at the hands of private respondents.

The 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.

It appears that prior to approaching this Court, the petitioner has 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).

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 the Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Further, as per Section 29 of the Rajasthan Police Act, 2007

(3 of 3)

[2025:RJ-JP:47022]

[CRLW-1523/2025]

every Police Officer is duty bound to protect the life and personal liberty of the citizens.

Looking to the fact that the petitioner has 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.

It is made clear that any observation in this order shall not affect any criminal and civil proceeding initiated against the petitioner. 8. 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.

(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J

Aayush Sharma /198