[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Maya vs State Of Rajasthan (2026:Rj-Jd:12595) on 17 March, 2026
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2026:RJ-JD:12595]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 1085/2026
1. Maya W/o Subhash Chander, Aged About 36 Years, Ward
No. 12, 11 Sbn, Po Nagrana, Tehsil Sangaria, District
Hanumangarh, Raj Presently Residing At Village Tatasar
Tehsil Raisinghnagar District Sriganganagar, Raj.
2. Ranjit Kumar S/o Krishan Kumar Sharma, Aged About 35
Years, Ward No 5 Sangaria Po Sangaria, Tehsil Sangaria,
District Hanumangarh
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Ministry Of
Home Affairs, Jaipur Raj.
2. Superintendent Of Police, Sriganganagar Through
Government Advocate, Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur
Raj.
3. Superintendent Of Police, Hanumangarh Through
Government Advocate, Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur
Raj..
4. Station House Officer, Police Station Chunawad, District
Sriganganagr Raj.
5. Station House Officer, Police Station Sangaria, District
Hanumangarh Raj..
6. Shardha W/o Shri Kesra Ram, Resident Of Village Tatasar,
Tehsil Raisinghnagar, District Sriganganagar Raj.
7. Ravindra S/o Shri Kesra Ram, Village Tatasar, Tehsil
Raisinghnagar, District Sriganganagar
8. Prahalad S/o Shri Jeet Ram, Village Tatasar, Tehsil
Raisinghnagar, District Sriganganagar
9. Mangilal S/o Shri Joot Ram, Village Chunawadh, Tehsil
District Sriganganagar
10. Raisingh S/o Shri Imilal, Village Chunawadh, Tehsil
District Sriganganagar Raj
11. Sanjay Kumar S/o Shri Amarsingh, Village Chunawadh,
Tehsil District Sriganganagar Raj
12. Subhash S/o Shri Dalip Ram, Ward No. 12, 11 Sbn, Po
Nagrana, Tehsil Sangaria, District Hanumangarh Raj..
(Uploaded on 17/03/2026 at 06:56:10 PM)
(Downloaded on 17/03/2026 at 08:46:00 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:12595] (2 of 4) [CRLW-1085/2026]
13. Dalip Kumar, Ward No. 12, 11 Sbn, Po Nagrana, Tehsil
Sangaria, District Hanumangarh Raj..
14. Sharbati, Ward No. 12, 11 Sbn, Po Nagrana, Tehsil
Sangaria, District Hanumangarh Raj..
15. Mainpal S/o Shri Dalip Ram, Ward No. 12, 11 Sbn, Po
Nagrana, Tehsil Sangaria, District Hanumangarh Raj..
16. Vinod, Ward No. 12, 11 Sbn, Po Nagrana, Tehsil Sangaria,
District Hanumangarh Raj..
17. Kamla, Ward No. 12, 11 Sbn, Po Nagrana, Tehsil
Sangaria, District Hanumangarh Raj..
18. Ram Kumar, 34 Chak Police Station Goluwala Tehsil
Pilibanga District Hanumangarh
19. Krishan Kumar Thori, 34 Chak Police Station Goluwala
Tehsil Pilibanga District Hanumangarh
20. Banwari Lal Jyani, Village Lalgarh Jattan Tehsil And
District Sri Ganganagar
21. Khyali Ram Bera, Village 28 Pbn Police Station Suratgarh
Tehsil Suratgarh District Sri Ganganagar
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Himmat Jagga
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Surendra Bishnoi, AGA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order
17/03/2026
1. The present Criminal Writ Petition has been preferred by the
petitioners under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking
issuance of appropriate directions to the official respondents for
providing them protection, on the ground that they apprehend
threat to their life and personal liberty at the hands of the private
respondents.
(Uploaded on 17/03/2026 at 06:56:10 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:12595] (3 of 4) [CRLW-1085/2026]
2. As per the pleadings, the petitioners claim to be majors and
of marriageable age and assert that they are living together in
live-in-relationship and have executed an agreement to this effect
on 05.03.2026. It is further stated that the private respondents
are opposed to the said relationship and are allegedly extending
threats, giving rise to an apprehension to the life and personal
liberty of the petitioners.
3. Upon perusal of the record, this Court is of the considered
view that the right to life and personal liberty is a fundamental
right guaranteed to every individual under the Constitution, and
the same cannot be compromised under any circumstances. No
person can be deprived of his or her life or personal liberty except
in accordance with the procedure established by law and
apprehension relating to life and personal liberty, if asserted,
deserves to be examined by the competent authority. The
assessment of threat perception and the necessity of protection
are matters falling within the domain of the police authorities, who
are duty bound to ensure maintenance of law and order and to
prevent any person from taking the law into his or her own hands.
4. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed with a direction that
the petitioners shall appear before the
Commissioner/Superintendent of Police concerned within a period
of ten days from today and submit a representation clearly
indicating the persons from whom they apprehend threat or harm.
Upon such appearance, the Commissioner/Superintendent of
Police concerned shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the
petitioners and, if deemed necessary, to the concerned private
respondents, examine the grievance, deliberate over the issue and
(Uploaded on 17/03/2026 at 06:56:10 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:12595] (4 of 4) [CRLW-1085/2026]
calibrate the threat perception and, if the circumstances so
warrant, pass appropriate orders in accordance with law so as to
ensure that no harm is caused to the petitioners by the private
respondents by taking law into their own hands.
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, the validity of the live-in-relationship agreement
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. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
(FARJAND ALI),J
469-poojatak/-
(Uploaded on 17/03/2026 at 06:56:10 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
