Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Chanchal Gorana vs State Of Rajasthan on 10 January, 2023
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
(1 of 3) [CRLW-42/2023]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 42/2023
1. Chanchal Gorana D/o Shri Lokesh Gorana, Aged About 24
Years, R/o Merta, Dabok Udaipur (Rajasthan)
2. Jitendra Salvi S/o Shri Nathu Lal Salvi, Aged About 31
Years, R/o Near Amaliya Ji Ka Mandir, Merta, Dabok
Udaipur (Rajasthan)
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Ministry Of
Home Affairs, Jaipur (Raj.)
2. The Superintendent Of Police, Udaipur.
3. The Station House Officer, Police Station Dabok, District
Udaipur (Raj.)
4. Shri Lokesh Gorana S/o Shri Mangilal Ji, R/o Merta,
Dabok, Udaipur (Rajasthan)
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mohit Sharma.
For Respondent(s) : Ms. Anita Gehlot, PP.
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Order
10/01/2023
1. The petitioners have preferred this criminal writ petition 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 respondent.
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.
(Downloaded on 11/01/2023 at 10:17:51 PM)
(2 of 3) [CRLW-42/2023]
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 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.
(Downloaded on 11/01/2023 at 10:17:51 PM)
(3 of 3) [CRLW-42/2023]
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 Police Station Dabok, District Udaipur
alongwith appropriate representation regarding his grievance. The
Station House Officer, Police Station Dabok, District Udaipur 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.
6. It is made clear that any observation in this order shall not
affect any criminal and civil proceedings initiated against the
petitioners.
(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI), J.
230-/Jitender//-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
