Naushin Nayach vs State Of Rajasthan
2022 Latest Caselaw 13527 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 7879/2022

1. Naushin Nayach D/o Mohd. Shabbir, Aged About 19 Years, Mojdeen Ki Dukan Ke Pas, Indra Colony, Bikaner (Raj.).

2. Narendra Gehlot S/o Narpat Lal, Aged About 27 Years, 664, Behind Karni House, Bagwano Ka Mohalla, Purani Ginani, Bikaner (Raj.).

----Petitioners Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary, Dept. Of Home, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur, Raj.

2. The Superintendent Of Police, Bikaner.

3. Sho, P.s. Bichhwal, Dist. Bikaner.

4. Mohd. Sabir S/o Hazi Abdul Majid Nayach, Mojdeen Ki Dukan Ke Pass, Indra Colony, Bikaner.

5. Vikki S/o Mohd. Sabir, Mojdeen Ki Dukan Ke Pass, Indra Colony, Bikaner.

6. Mr. Ayyum Ali Sodha S/o Namalum, Dhobi Talai, Rani Bazar, Gali No. 6, Bikaner (Raj.).

                                                                ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)        :     Mr. N.S. Rathore
For Respondent(s)        :     Mr. S.K. Bhati, PP



              HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

                                    Order

18/11/2022

1. This Petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for

protection of life and personal liberty of the petitioners.

2. Heard learned counsel for both the sides and perused the

material made available on record.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that both the

petitioners are major and they are living in live-in-relationship and

(2 of 3) [CRLMP-7879/2022]

in this regard, they have executed an agreement on 10.11.2022,

but the private respondents and others are not happy with their

relationship and they are threatening the petitioners. Private

respondents have no right to harass the petitioners and to take

the law in their hands. Given that their life and liberty is in danger,

police protection may be granted to them. Reliance has been

placed upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble High Court in the

case of Leela v. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Criminal Misc.

Petition No. 5045/2021 decided on 15.09.2021) wherein it

was held that the right to claim protection under Article 21 of the

Constitution of India is imperative and it cannot be waived off

based on moral/legal validity of live-in relationship.

4. Learned Public Prosecutor submits that appropriate directions

may be issued.

5. In view of the order intended to be passed in the petition,

being non-prejudicial to the private respondents, no notices are

required against them.

6. Heard. Considered.

7. It is well settled legal position as expounded by the Hon'ble

Supreme Court of India in Lata Singh Vs. State of UP [AIR

2006 SC 2522], S. Khushboo Vs. Kanniammal [(2010) 5

SCC 600], Indra Sarma Vs. VKV Sarma [(2013) 15 SCC 755]

and Shafin Jahan vs. Asokan KM & Ors. [(2018) 16 SCC

368] that the society cannot determine how individuals live their

lives, especially when they are major, irrespective of the fact that

the relation between two major individuals may be termed as

immoral and unsocial. Thus, life and personal liberty of the

individuals has to be protected except according to procedure

(3 of 3) [CRLMP-7879/2022]

established by law, as mandated by Article 21 of the Constitution

of India. Further, as per Section 29 of Rajasthan Police Act, 2007

every police officer is duty bound to protect the life and liberty of

the citizens.

8. Therefore, in light of above legal position and after hearing

learned counsel for the parties as well as perusing the record of

the case, since the petitioners apprehend threat to their right of

life and liberty, this Court is of the considered view that the

petitioners have every right to seek the protection of their life,

limb and liberty; and therefore, persuaded to dispose of the

present petition with the direction to the petitioners to appear

before the Superintendent of Police, Bikaner along with

appropriate representation regarding their grievance. The

Superintendent of Police, Bikaner shall in turn hear the grievance

of the petitioners, and after analyzing the threat perceptions, if

necessitated, may pass necessary orders to provide adequate

security and protection to the petitioners.

9. It is made clear that any observation in this order shall not

affect any criminal and civil proceedings initiated against the

petitioners.

10. Accordingly, the Misc. Petition is allowed.

(FARJAND ALI),J 274-Mamta/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)