Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Lata vs State Of Rajasthan on 2 January, 2023
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 2950/2021
1. Lata D/o Chandra Ram Ji W/o Jitendra Kumar, Aged About
20 Years, B/c Sen, R/o Dudo Ka Vada Ajit, Tehsil Samdari,
District Barmer (Rajasthan).
2. Jitendra Kumar S/o Mangi Lal, Aged About 25 Years, B/c
Sen, R/o Virana, Tehsil Sayla, District Jalore (Rajasthan).
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Ministry Of
Home Affairs, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
2. The Superintendent Of Police, Barmer.
3. Station House Officer, Police Station Samdari, District
Barmer.
4. Shankar S/o Shavla Ji, R/o Village Ajit, Tehsil Samdari,
District Barmer (Rajasthan).
5. Gotam S/o Joga Ji, R/o Village Ajit, Tehsil Samdari,
District Barmer (Rajasthan).
6. Jeeva Ram S/o Joga Ji, R/o Village Ajit, Tehsil Samdari,
District Barmer (Rajasthan).
7. Sunil S/o Roopa, Joga Ji, R/o Village Parul, Tehsil
Samdari, District Barmer (Rajasthan).
8. Roopji S/o Chhoga Ji, Joga Ji, R/o Village Parul, Tehsil
Samdari, District Barmer (Rajasthan).
9. Suresh S/o Bheem Ji, Joga Ji, R/o Village Maili, Tehsil
Samdari, District Barmer (Rajasthan).
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manish
For Respondent(s) : Mr. M.S. Bhati, PP
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Order
02/01/2023
1. The petitioners have preferred this misc. petition under
Section 482 Cr.P.C., for issuance of necessary directions to the
official respondents to provide adequate security and protection to
the petitioners on the ground that they are facing grave threat of
life and liberty at the hands of private respondents.
(Downloaded on 02/01/2023 at 08:32:55 PM)
(2 of 4) [CRLMP-2950/2021]
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that 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.
3. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the
record of the case.
4. While keeping in mind a catena of precedent laws laid down
by the Hon'ble Apex Court, this Court has made the following
observations in its judgment rendered in the case of Leela & Anr.
Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition
No. 5045/2021, decided on 15.09.2021):-
"30. It is sufficiently clear to this Court that the
Hon'ble Apex Court's standpoint is that there exists a
duty of the State to protect and safeguard all
fundamental rights, unless taken away by due process
of law. Even if any illegality or wrongfulness has been
committed, the duty to punish vests solely with the
State, that too in attune with due process of law. In no
circumstance can the State bypass due process, permit
or condone any acts of moral policing or mob
mentality. When the Right to life and liberty is even
guaranteed to convicted criminals of serious offences,
there can be no reasonable nexus to not grant the
same protection to those in an "legal/illegal
relationships".
31. Had there been a question before this Court
with regards the morality/ legality of live- in
relationships and matters connected thereto, then
perhaps the answer would have required more
deliberation along those lines. However, in the context
of the limited question this Court is posed with
pertaining to the application of Article 21 of the
Constitution of India and it is clear that the right to
claim protection under this Article is a constitutional
(Downloaded on 02/01/2023 at 08:32:55 PM)
(3 of 4) [CRLMP-2950/2021]
mandate upon the State and can be availed by all
persons alike. There arises no question of this right to
be waived off even if the person seeking protection is
guilty of an immoral, unlawful or illegal act, as per the
precedent law cited of the Hon'ble Apex Court.
However, in this case, this Court does not wish to delve
into the sanctity of relationships.
32.This Court finds itself firmly tied down to the
principle of individual autonomy, which cannot be
hampered by societal expectations in a vibrant
democracy. The State's respect for the individual
independent choices has to be held high.
33.This Court fully values the principle that at all
junctures constitutional morality has to have an
overriding impact upon societal morality.
This Court cannot sit back and watch the transgression
or dereliction in the sphere of fundamental rights,
which are basic human rights.
The public morality cannot be allowed to overshadow
the constitutional morality, particularly when the legal
tenability of the right to protection is paramount.
34. This Court is duty bound to act as a
protector of the rights of the individuals, which are
under siege with the clear intention of obstructing
the vision of Constitution."
5. This Court thus disposes of the present petition with the
direction to the petitioners to appear before the Station House
Officer, Police Station Samdari, District Barmer alongwith
appropriate representation regarding their grievance. The Station
House Officer, Police Station Samdari, District Barmer 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.
(Downloaded on 02/01/2023 at 08:32:55 PM)
(4 of 4) [CRLMP-2950/2021]
4. It is made clear that any observation in this order shall
not affect any criminal and civil proceedings initiated against the
petitioners.
5. All pending applications also stand disposed of.
(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI), J.
51-nirmala/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
