Disposed

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

Rajasthan HC10 Dec 2025CRLW/1646/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Rajasthan High Court dismissed a writ petition seeking security and protection for a married couple allegedly threatened by private respondents. The Court emphasized Article 21 and police duties while directing officers to assess threats, but ultimately disposed of the petition without specific relief in the order text.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of; specific relief not granted in this order; stay application and pending applications disposed of.

Gunjan Mittal W/O Vishal Pandey D/O Sunil Mittal… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Rajasthan HC (2025)

¶1

[2025:RJ-JP:50236]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No.1646/2025

¶4

Gunjan Mittal W/o Vishal Pandey D/o Sunil Mittal, Aged About 20 Years, R/o Sindhi Schook Ke Peeche Purohit Mohalla Bharatpur Rajasthan Presently Residing At Ward No. 17, Namak Katra Kumher Gate Bharatpur Rajasthan.

¶5

Vishal Pandey S/o Sunil Pandey, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Village Ward No. 17, Namak Katra Kumher Gate Bharatpur Rajasthan.

¶6

----Petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

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

¶9

Superintendent Of Police, Bharatpur, District Bharatpur, Rajasthan.

¶10

S.h.o. Police Station Kotwali, District Bharatpur.

¶11

Sunil Mittal S/o Shri Dinesh Chand, Aged About 44 Years, R/o Behind Sindhi School, Purohit Mohalla, Ps Kotwali, Bharatpur, Rajasthan.

¶12

Pawan Mittal S/o Denesh Chand, R/o Behind Sindhi School, Purohit Mohalla, Ps Kotwali, Bharatpur, Rajasthan.

¶13

----Respondents

¶14

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr.	Harish Agarwal
For Respondent(s)	: Mr.	Vivek Choudhary,PP

¶15

JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

¶16

Order

¶17

10/12/2025

¶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:50236]

[CRLW-1646/2025]

(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 25.11.2025, 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:50236]

[CRLW-1646/2025]

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/199

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gunjan Mittal W/O Vishal Pandey D/O Sunil Mittal 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

Sachin S/O Late Shri Rambabu Vs State of Rajasthan

Kapil Jakhar S/O Sh. Birju Singh, Vs the State of Rajasthan

Charan Singh Singaria S/O Shri Om Prakash Singaria Vs State of Rajasthan

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

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

Rukmani Devi W/O Balu Ram Meena, Vs State of Rajasthan