Disposed

Smt. Tulsa D/O Shri Hariram, Wife of Shri Nitish Kumar, v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC9 Jan 2025CRLW/2201/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A married couple sought police protection alleging threats to their life and liberty from private respondents. The court noted prior representations to the Nodal Officer and SHO, invoked Article 21 and Section 29 of the Rajasthan Police Act, and directed the authorities to consider the representations in line with earlier directions.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed with directions to the Nodal Officer and SHO to assess the threat perception and provide security if necessitated; stay application also disposed.

Smt. Tulsa D/O Shri Hariram, Wife of… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Rajasthan HC (2025)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 2201/2024

¶3

Smt. Tulsa D/o Shri Hariram, Wife Of Shri Nitish Kumar, Aged About 21 Years, Resident Of 98, Kundeela Kudila Kharangapur, Tikamgarh, Baldeogarh ( Madhya Pradesh) At Present Resident Of Manglam Garden City, Muhana, Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur ( Rajasthan).

¶4

Nitish Kumar Son Of Shri Satendra Giri, Aged About 28 Years, Resident Of Taraunchi, Post Tineri Taraunchi, Guraru Mills, Guraru, Gaya ( Bihar) At Present Resident Of Manglam Garden City, Muhana, Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur (Rajasthan).

¶5

----Petitioners

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through P.P.

¶8

Commissioner Of Police, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur (Raj).

¶9

S.H.O. Police Station Muhana, Jaipur (Raj).

¶10

Hari Ram Son Of Not Known, Aged About 45 Years, Resident Of 98, Kundeela Kudila Kharangapur, Tikamgarh, Baldeogarh ( Madhya Pradesh) .

¶11

Smt. Chand @ Chanda Wife Of Shri Hariram, Aged About 40 Years, Resident Of 98, Kundeela Kudila Kharangapur, Tikamgarh, Baldeogarh ( Madhya Pradesh) .

¶12

Gopal Son Of Shri Hari Ram, Aged About 28 Years, Resident Of 98, Kundeela Kudila Kharangapur, Tikamgarh, Baldeogarh (Madhya Pradesh) .

¶13

----Respondents

¶14

For Petitioner(s) : None present For Respondent(s) : Mr. Jitendra Singh Rathore, PP

¶15

JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

Order

09/01/2025

[CRLW-2201/2024]

(2 of 3)

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

¶21

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).

¶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

It appears that prior to approaching this Court the petitioners have 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).

¶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 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.

¶25

[CRLW-2201/2024]

¶26

(3 of 3)

¶27

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.

¶28

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

¶29

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.

¶30

(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J

¶31

KuD/456

Smt. Tulsa D/O Shri Hariram, Wife of Shri Nitish Kumar, v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Tulsa D/O Shri Hariram, Wife of Shri Nitish Kumar, 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

Pravesh Kachavaha @ Piyush Kachavaha S/O Shri Rakesh Kachavaha, Vs State of Rajasthan

Om Prakash Gupta S/O Late Shri Badri Lal Gupta, Kalal, Vs State of Rajasthan

Sahdev Kaviya Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Daulat S/O Nanulal, Vs State of Rajasthan

Aadil Choudhary S/O Shri Aalam Choudhary Vs State of Rajasthan

Radheshyam Joshi Dakot S/O Shri Rampal Joshi Dakot, Vs State of Rajasthan