Disposed

Avani Mangal D/O Shri Girraj Prasad Mangal, v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC11 Dec 2025CRLW/1597/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A married couple sought police protection claiming threat to life and liberty from family members. The court noted their registered marriage and pending representation before the SHO/Nodal Officer, directed authorities to consider the representation in terms of earlier directions in Suman Meena and provide protection if warranted.

What did the court decide?

Direction to Nodal Officer/SHO to analyze threat perception after representation and, if necessitated, provide adequate security and protection to the petitioners.

Avani Mangal D/O Shri Girraj Prasad… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Rajasthan HC (2025)

¶1

[2025:RJ-JP:50340]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 1597/2025

¶4

Avani Mangal D/o Shri Girraj Prasad Mangal, Aged About 20 Years, R/o Near Of Telan Pansari Balaji, City, Police Station Kotwali, District Sawai Madhopur (Raj.) Presently Reside At Neem Chouki, Harijan Basti, City, Police Station Kotwali, District Sawai Madhopur (Raj.)

¶5

Anmol Sonwal S/o Shri Vicki Sonwal, Aged About 21 Years, R/o Neem Chouki, Harijan Basti, City, Police Station Kotwali, Sawai Madhopur District Sawai Madhopur (Raj.)

¶6

----Petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department Of Home, Government Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.).

¶9

The Director General Of Police, Rajasthan Police, Jaipur (Raj.). 3. The Superintendent Of Police, District Sawai Madhopur (Raj.). 4. The Nodal Officer, Office Of Superintendent Of Police, Sawai Madhopur, District Sawai Madhopur (Raj.).

¶10

The Station House Officer, Police Station Kotwali, District Sawai Madhopur (Raj.).

¶11

Girraj Prasad Mangal S/o Shiv Prasad Mangal, Aged About 55 Years, R/o Near Of Telan Pansari Balaji, City, Police Station Kotwali, Sawai Madhopur (Raj.) (Father Of Petitioner No.1)

¶12

Pawan Agrawal S/o Tara Chand Agrawal, Aged About 38 Years, R/o Shivaji Nagar, Kampu Road, Tonk, District Tonk (Raj). ( Relative Of Petitioner No. 1).

¶13

Om Prakash Mangal S/o Shiv Prasad Mangal, Aged About 51 Years, R/o Near Of Telan Pansari Balaji, City, Police Station Kotwali Sawai Madhopur (Raj). ( Uncle Of Petitioner No. 1).

¶14

----Respondents

¶15

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Ashindra Gautam Mrs. Vijay Laxmi Gautam Mrs. Reena Goyal
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Amit Punia, PP
	Mr. Jitendra Singh Rathore,PP

¶16

JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

Order

[2025:RJ-JP:50340]

[CRLW-1597/2025]

(2 of 3)

11/12/2025

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).

¶23

Counsel for the petitioners submits that both the petitioners major and they have solemnized marriage on 13.11.2025 and the same has been registered by the competent authority. Counsel submits that prior to approaching this Court the petitioners have already submitted representation before the concerned Station House Officer/Nodal Officer pursuant to the orders passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Suman Meena vs.

¶24

State of Rajasthan (S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No.792/2024). Counsel submits that appropriate directions be issued in favour of the petitioners.

¶25

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.

[2025:RJ-JP:50340]

[CRLW-1597/2025]

(3 of 3)

Considering the arguments put forward by the learned counsel for the petitioners and looking to the fact that the petitioners have solemnized marriage on 13.11.2025 and the same has been registered by the competent authority and also considering the fact that the petitioners have already submitted appropriate representation/application seeking protection before the Nodal Officer/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.

¶30

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

¶31

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.

¶32

(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J

¶33

KuD/14

Avani Mangal D/O Shri Girraj Prasad Mangal, v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Avani Mangal D/O Shri Girraj Prasad Mangal, 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

Sanjay Godara S/O Ramchandra Jat, Vs State of Rajasthan

Gunjan Mittal W/O Vishal Pandey D/O Sunil Mittal Vs State of Rajasthan

Zafar Chisti Son of Syed Farooq Ahmed Niyaji, Vs the State of Rajasthan

Dungarmal Acharya @ Vicky S/O Gajraj Acharya, Vs State of Rajasthan

Mamta D/O Randheer Singh, Vs State of Rajasthan

Akansha Sharma D/O Shree Dinesh Kumar Sharma W/O Kishan Paliwal Vs State of Rajasthan