Rinkoo Yadav vs State Of Rajasthan (2026:Rj-Jd:16509)
2026 Latest Caselaw 5468 Raj

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Rinkoo Yadav vs State Of Rajasthan (2026:Rj-Jd:16509) on 9 April, 2026

Author: Farjand Ali

Bench: Farjand Ali

[2026:RJ-JD:16509]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
               S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 1518/2026

1.       Rinkoo Yadav D/o Makhan Lal Yadav, Aged About 24
         Years, Resident Of Ward No. 10, Teja Ji Maharaj Ka
         Mohalla,     Modyadi,        Post      Mandusiya,        District   Sikar,
         Rajasthan. At Present R/o Bhagat Ki Kothi, Jodhpur.
2.       Kamlesh Yadav S/o Maliram Yadav, Aged About 24 Years,
         Resident Of Ward No. 09, Dhani Mishra Wali, Hathora,
         Post Mandusiya, District Sikar, Rajasthan. At Present R/o
         Bhagat Ki Kothi, Jodhpur.
                                                                    ----Petitioners
                                     Versus
1.       State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Ministry Of
         Home Affairs, Jaipur (Raj.)
2.       Director General Of Police, Govt. Of Rajasthan Police Head
         Quarter, Jaipur Raj.
3.       The Commissioner Of Police, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
4.       The Commissioner Of Police, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
5.       The Superintendent Of Police, Sikar, Rajasthan.
6.       The Station House Officer, Police Station Ajeetgarh,
         Rajasthan.
7.       Ashok Yadav S/o Shankar Lal Yadav, R/o Mandusiya,
         District Sikar, Rajasthan.
8.       Subhash Yadav S/o Makhan Lal Yadav, R/o Mandusiya,
         District Sikar, Rajasthan.
9.       Rahul Yadav S/o Makhan Lal Yadav, R/o Mandusiya,
         District Sikar, Rajasthan.
10.      Sitaram Yadav S/o Shankar Lal Yadav, R/o Mandusiya,
         District Sikar, Rajasthan.
11.      Om Prakash Yadav S/o Maliram Yadav, R/o Mandusiya,
         District Sikar, Rajasthan.
12.      Ramavtar Yadav S/o Chhitarmal Yadav, R/o Mandusiya,
         District Sikar, Rajasthan.
                                                                  ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)          :     Mr. Harshvardhan
For Respondent(s)          :     Mr. Surendra Bishnoi, AGA


                       (Uploaded on 10/04/2026 at 12:18:11 PM)
                      (Downloaded on 10/04/2026 at 04:07:02 PM)
 [2026:RJ-JD:16509]                   (2 of 4)                    [CRLW-1518/2026]




                HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

Order

09/04/2026

1. The present Criminal Writ Petition has been preferred under

Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking directions to the

official respondents to provide protection to the petitioners, who

apprehend threat to their life and personal liberty at the hands of

the private respondents.

2. The right to life and personal liberty is a fundamental right

and cannot be compromised. The assessment of threat perception

and requirement of protection lies within the domain of the police

authorities, who are duty bound to ensure that no person takes

law into their own hands.

3. Considering the grounds taken in the writ petition and the

circumstances of the case, it appears to this Court is satisfied that

a genuine and imminent apprehension of threat to the life and

personal liberty of the petitioners exists. The right guaranteed

under Article 21 of the Constitution of India is sacrosanct and

stands on the highest pedestal amongst all fundamental rights. It

is well settled that the expression "life" under Article 21 does not

connote mere animal existence but encompasses the right to live

with human dignity, safety and without fear. This Court cannot

remain a mute spectator when such valuable fundamental rights

are put in jeopardy. The constitutional mandate casts a positive

obligation upon the State and its instrumentalities to protect and

preserve the life and liberty of every individual and to ensure that

(Uploaded on 10/04/2026 at 12:18:11 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:16509] (3 of 4) [CRLW-1518/2026]

no person takes the law into his or her own hands. Whenever a

palpable threat to life is brought to the notice of this Court, it

becomes not only appropriate but imperative for the Court to step

in and ensure that the rule of law prevails. In such matters, this

Court does not hesitate to intervene where the protection of life

and personal liberty is at stake.

4. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of with a direction to the

petitioners to appear before the Commissioner/Superintendent of

Police concerned within 15 days and submit a representation

indicating the source of threat. The concerned officer shall

examine the grievance, assess the threat perception and pass

appropriate directions, if required, in accordance with law.

Necessary coordination with the concerned police authorities may

also be undertaken.

5. It is clarified that this Court has not recorded any definitive

finding with regard to the legitimacy of the relationship claimed by

the petitioners, their age, the validity of the alleged marriage or

the genuineness of the documents relied upon by them, and all

such aspects shall remain open for enquiry and investigation by

the competent authority, in accordance with law. It is further

made clear that any observation made herein shall not affect any

civil or criminal proceedings, if any, pending or to be initiated in

accordance with law.

6. The petition stands disposed of. Pending applications, if any,

also stand disposed of.

(FARJAND ALI),J 224-poojatak/-

(Uploaded on 10/04/2026 at 12:18:11 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:16509] (4 of 4) [CRLW-1518/2026]

(Uploaded on 10/04/2026 at 12:18:11 PM)

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)