Wednesday, 13, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Minakshi Rajpurohit vs State Of Rajasthan (2026:Rj-Jd:16849)
2026 Latest Caselaw 5586 Raj

Citation : 2026 Latest Caselaw 5586 Raj
Judgement Date : 10 April, 2026

[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Minakshi Rajpurohit vs State Of Rajasthan (2026:Rj-Jd:16849) on 10 April, 2026

Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2026:RJ-JD:16849]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
               S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 1397/2026

1.       Minakshi Rajpurohit W/o Arshdeep Singh, Aged About 22
         Years, D/o Papu Singh, R/o Aakheji Ka Bass, Bavadi
         Kalan, Phalodi, Jodhpur, At Present R/o Kartarsing Colony,
         Hanumangarh Junction, District Hanumangarh.
2.       Arshdeep Singh S/o Navratan Singh, Aged About 22
         Years, R/o Vpo Roranwali, Shri Muktsar Sahib, Punjab, At
         Present Residing At Kartarsing Colony, Hanumangarh
         Junction, District Hanumangarh
                                                                    ----Petitioners
                                     Versus
1.       State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department
         Of Home Affairs, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat,
         Jaipur
2.       The Superintendent Of Police, Hanumangarh
3.       The Sho, Police Station Hanumangarh Town, District
         Hanumangarh
4.       Papu Singh S/o Guman Singh, R/o Akkheji Ka Bass,
         Bavadi Kalan Phalodi At Present Residing At Mukarji
         Colony,     Ward       No   33,    Hanumangarh            Town,   District
         Hanumangarh.
5.       Mohit S/o Papu Singh, R/o Akkheji Ka Bass, Bavadi Kalan
         Phalodi At Present Residing At Mukarji Colony, Ward No
         33, Hanumangarh Town, District Hanumangarh.
6.       Gajendar Singh S/o Guman Singh, Mukarji Colony, Ward
         No 33, Hanumangarh Town, District Hanumangarh.
                                                                  ----Respondents


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



                HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

(Uploaded on 10/04/2026 at 05:47:55 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:16849] (2 of 3) [CRLW-1397/2026]

Order

10/04/2026

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 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 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

(Uploaded on 10/04/2026 at 05:47:55 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:16849] (3 of 3) [CRLW-1397/2026]

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 263-poojatak/-

(Uploaded on 10/04/2026 at 05:47:55 PM)

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter