Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Bhanu @ Bhanu Devi vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:18554) on 15 April, 2025
Author: Kuldeep Mathur
Bench: Kuldeep Mathur
[2025:RJ-JD:18554]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 980/2025
1. Bhanu @ Bhanu Devi W/o Prakash, Aged About 33 Years,
R/o Maliyo Ka Was Balotra, Tehsil Pachpadra, District
Barmer, Presently Dist. Balotra, (Raj)
2. Praveen S/o Ramesh Kumar, Aged About 31 Years, R/o
Harijan Basti Ward No. 15, Balotra, Tehsil Pachpadra,
District Barmer, Presently Dist. Balotra, (Raj)
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Ministry Of
Home Affairs, Jaipur (Raj)
2. The Superintendent Of Police Balotra, Through
Government Advocate, Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur
(Raj)
3. The Station House Officer, Police Station Jasol, District
Balotra (Raj)
4. The Station House Officer, Police Station Balotra.
5. Prakash S/o Ganpat Lal, R/o Ward No 5 Bajarang Colony
City Park Ke Pass Balotra Tahsil Pachpadra, Dist. Balotra,
(Raj)
6. Rakesh S/o Ganpat Lal, R/o Ward No 5 Bajarang Colony
City Park Ke Pass Balotra Tahsil Pachpadra, Dist. Balotra,
(Raj)
7. Ganpat Lal S/o Bhagwan Chand, R/o Ward No 5 Bajarang
Colony City Park Ke Pass Balotra Tahsil Pachpadra, Dist.
Balotra, (Raj)
8. Kishan S/o Bhagwan Chand, R/o Ward No 5 Bajarang
Colony City Park Ke Pass Balotra Tahsil Pachpadra, Dist.
Balotra, (Raj)
9. Baldev S/o Bhagwan Chand, R/o Ward No 5 Bajarang
Colony City Park Ke Pass Balotra Tahsil Pachpadra, Dist.
Balotra, (Raj)
10. Praveen S/o Mangilal, R/o Ward No 5 Bajarang Colony
City Park Ke Pass Balotra Tahsil Pachpadra, Dist. Balotra,
(Raj)
11. Raju S/o Mangilal, R/o Ward No 5 Bajarang Colony City
Park Ke Pass Balotra Tahsil Pachpadra, Dist. Balotra, (Raj)
(Downloaded on 15/04/2025 at 09:40:44 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:18554] (2 of 3) [CRLW-980/2025]
12. Manish S/o Baldev, R/o Ward No 5 Bajarang Colony City
Park Ke Pass Balotra Tahsil Pachpadra, Dist. Balotra, (Raj)
13. Abhishek S/o Baldev, R/o Ward No 5 Bajarang Colony City
Park Ke Pass Balotra Tahsil Pachpadra, Dist. Balotra, (Raj)
14. Hitesh S/o Prem Chand, R/o Ward No 5 Bajarang Colony
City Park Ke Pass Balotra Tahsil Pachpadra, Dist. Balotra,
(Raj)
15. Prem S/o Bhagwan Chand, R/o Ward No 5 Bajarang
Colony City Park Ke Pass Balotra Tahsil Pachpadra, Dist.
Balotra, (Raj)
16. Lalit S/o Babulal, R/o Ward No 5 Bajarang Colony City
Park Ke Pass Balotra Tahsil Pachpadra, Dist. Balotra, (Raj)
17. Deepak S/o Babulal, R/o Ward No 5 Bajarang Colony City
Park Ke Pass Balotra Tahsil Pachpadra, Dist. Balotra, (Raj)
18. Sharda W/o Babulal, R/o Ward No 5 Bajarang Colony City
Park Ke Pass Balotra Tahsil Pachpadra, Dist. Balotra, (Raj)
19. Shobha W/o Kishan, R/o Ward No 5 Bajarang Colony City
Park Ke Pass Balotra Tahsil Pachpadra, Dist. Balotra, (Raj)
20. Santosh W/o Ganpat Lal, R/o Ward No 5 Bajarang Colony
City Park Ke Pass Balotra Tahsil Pachpadra, Dist. Balotra,
(Raj)
21. Chetan W/o Kishan Lal, R/o Ward No 5 Bajarang Colony
City Park Ke Pass Balotra Tahsil Pachpadra, Dist. Balotra,
(Raj)
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Bhatraj Jogsan
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Narendra Singh, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR
Order
15/04/2025
The criminal writ petition has been preferred by the
petitioners under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking
direction for being provided with adequate security and protection.
[2025:RJ-JD:18554] (3 of 3) [CRLW-980/2025]
The petitioners both being major persons claim to be in a live
in relationship. They submit that they are living with each other
against the wishes of their parents and thus, they feel threat at
the hands of private respondents, who are their relatives. The
petitioners allegedly approached the concerned respondent
authorities with a prayer to be provided with adequate protection
but no heed has been paid to their request so far.
The documents pertaining to the age of the petitioners and
an ikrarnama verifying the factum of them being in a live in
relationship have been filed on record. Thus, taking cue from the
judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Lata Singh Vs. State of U.P. Reported in AIR 2006 SC 2522, the
prayer made by the petitioners for directing the concerned
respondent authorities to provide protection to the petitioners
deserves to be accepted.
The concerned respondent authorities shall have the matter
enquired into and if so required, appropriate protection shall be
provided to the petitioners as and when warranted. The concerned
respondent authorities shall ensure that no harm is caused to the
petitioners, who are in a live in relationship.
The criminal writ petition is accordingly disposed of.
(KULDEEP MATHUR),J
218-himanshu/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
