Dismissed

Staleena Kar D/O Shri Dilip Kumar Kar W/O Prakhar Garg v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC1 Dec 2025CRLW/1574/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Rajasthan disposed of a writ petition by two married individuals seeking protection against life threats from a private respondent. The Court cited constitutional provisions and precedents, directed officials to review the threat and provide security, and dismissed the petition.

What did the court decide?

Direction to concerned officers to analyze threat perceptions and provide adequate security and protection to petitioners if necessitated.

Staleena Kar D/O Shri Dilip Kumar Kar W/O Prakhar Garg Vs State of Rajasthan — Rajasthan HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

[2025:RJ-JP:48749]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No.1574/2025

¶4

Staleena Kar D/o Shri Dilip Kumar Kar W/o Prakhar Garg, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Palashpai, Hooghly, West Bengal, R/o B-92/b, Surya Marg, Behind Lbs College, Tilak Nagar, Jaipur Rajasthan.

¶5

Prakhar Garg S/o Shri Jitesh Kumar Garg, Aged About 33 Years, R/o B-92/b, Surya Marg, Behind Lbs College, Tilak Nagar, Jaipur Rajasthan.

¶6

----Petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

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

¶9

Director General Of Police, Rajasthan Jaipur.

¶10

The Commissione, Police Commissionerate, Near Bsnl Office Sardar Patel Marg, Ashok Nagar, C-Scheme, Jaipur.

¶11

Station House Officer, Police Station Adarsh Nagar, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶12

Dilip Kumar Kar S/o Shri Vasudev Kar, R/o Palashpai Hooghly West Bengal

¶13

----Respondents

¶14

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr.	Laxmikant Malpura
For Respondent(s)	: Mr.	Vivek Choudhary,PP

¶15

JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

¶16

Order

¶17

01/12/2025

¶18

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

¶19

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

[2025:RJ-JP:48749]

[CRLW-1574/2025]

(2 of 3)

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

¶24

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.

¶25

The contents of the petition indicate that both the petitioners are of major age and they have solemnized marriage with each other on 12.11.2025, 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.

¶26

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

(3 of 3)

[2025:RJ-JP:48749]

[CRLW-1574/2025]

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.

¶31

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.

¶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 writ petition stands disposed of. The stay application and all pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

¶34

(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J

¶35

Karan/217

Staleena Kar D/O Shri Dilip Kumar Kar W/O Prakhar Garg v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Staleena Kar D/O Shri Dilip Kumar Kar W/O Prakhar Garg 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

Sohanlal Saini S/O Shri Govardhan Saini, Vs State of Rajasthan

Sanjay Maheshwari S/O Ramswaroop, Vs Smt. Kaushalya Bhandari W/O P.N. Bhandari

Saroj Kumari Jat D/O Ghisa Ram Jat, Vs State of Rajasthan

Smt. Anju Modi W/O Kishan Lal Modi Vs State of Rajasthan

Kanhaiya Lal Son of Shri Rajaram, Vs State of Rajasthan

Mumtaj Ali S/O Late Abdul Gani, Vs Union of India