Hina Soni @ Hina Khan W/O Suhel Khan, D/O Satyendra Soni Vs State of Rajasthan

¶1

[2026:RJ-JP:13881]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 464/2020

¶4

Hina Soni @ Hina Khan W/o Suhel Khan, D/o Satyendra Soni, Aged About 19 Years, R/o Hanuman Nagar, Fatehbad, Agra, Up, At Present R/o House No.558, Pathano Ka Chowk, Brahampuri, Jaipur.

¶5

Suhel Khan S/o Atik Khan, Aged About 24 Years, R/o Khan Mohalla Village And Post Dhodhar, Tehsil And District Shyopur, Mp, At Present R/o House No.558, Pathano Ka Chowk, Brahampuri, Jaipur.

¶6

----Petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

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

¶9

Director General Of Police, Rajasthan, Police Head Quarters, Jaipur.

¶10

Commissioner Of Police, Police Commissionerate, Jaipur. 4. SHO, Police Station Brahampuri, Jaipur Metropolitan, Raj. 5. Satyendra Soni S/o Krishan Gopal, R/o Hanuman Nagar, Fatehbad, Agra, Up.

¶11

Krishna Soni W/o Satyendra Soni, R/o Hanuman Nagar, Fatehbad, Agra, Up.

¶12

----Respondents

¶13

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shamsuddin Ansari For Respondent(s) : Mr. Jitendra Singh Rathore, PP

¶14

JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

¶15

Order

¶16

02/04/2026

¶17

The petitoners have preferred the instant petition seeking issuance of necessary directions to the official-respondents to provide adequate security and protection to them on the ground

[2026:RJ-JP:13881]

[CRLMP-464/2020]

(2 of 4)

that they are facing grave threat to their life and personal liberty at the hands of the private respondent Nos.5 & 6.

¶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

Counsel for the petitioners submits that both the petitioners are major and they have solemnized Nikah on 16.12.2019 and the same has been registered by the competent authority and a certificate in this regard has also been issued. Counsel submits that the life and personal liberty of the petitioners are at stack at the hands of the private respondent Nos. 5 & 6.

¶24

The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 08.02.2020 while issuing notice to the respondent Nos.5 & 6 directed the petitioners to appear before the respondent No.4, who was directed to ensure that no harm is caused to the petitioners from their relatives. Thereafter, the matter came to be listed before this Court on several occasions but the same got adjourned for one reason or another.

¶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 and the order passed by this Court in the case of Suman Meena vs. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No.792/2024, decided on 02.08.2024) that the life and personal liberty of the individuals

[2026:RJ-JP:13881]

[CRLMP-464/2020]

(3 of 4)

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.

¶30

The petitioners may submit a representation before the SHO of the concerned Police Station in relation to protecting their life and personal liberty, as enshrined under the Constitution of India. 7. Considering the above aspect of the matter and looking to the fact that an interim order dated 08.02.2020 was passed by this Court directing the respondent No. 4 to ensure no harm is caused to the petitioners from their relatives, it is expected from the officer 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 received by the petitioners and after taking into account the representation so submitted by the petitioners, if any, the Officer concerned may pass necessary orders to provide adequate security and protection to the petitioners. If protection has already been provided to the petitioners and the same is still continuing, then the SHO may further consider as to whether the said police protection is still required or not.

¶31

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

¶32

(4 of 4) [CRLMP-464/2020]

¶33

[2026:RJ-JP:13881]

¶34

With the aforesaid observations, the instant criminal misc. petition stands disposed of. The stay application and all pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

¶35

(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J

¶36

Puneet-Shivam/49

Hina Soni @ Hina Khan W/O Suhel Khan, D/O Satyendra Soni v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hina Soni @ Hina Khan W/O Suhel Khan, D/O Satyendra Soni v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hakimdin Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Bhanwar Singh Dhinva Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Gyan Prakash S/O Shri Ram Singh B/C Meena Vs State of Rajasthan

Smt Surjaa Bhai @ Suraj Bhai and Ors. Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Suresh Sharma S/O Shri Ramniwas Sharma Vs State of Rajasthan

Khajan Singh S/O Shri Ompal Singh Vs State of Rajasthan