The State has a constitutional obligation to protect the life and liberty of all individuals, including those in illegal or immoral relationships.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

JODHPUR

S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 865/2022

1.

Bula Devi D/o Nagaraj Ji, Aged About 19 Years, B/c Lohar,

R/o Lasani Ki Dhani, Pali (Raj.). (Aadhar No. 2246 6514

9856).

2.

Rewant Ram S/o Sh. Shankar Ram, Aged About 26 Years,

B/c Lohar, R/o W.no. 1, Beda Ka Bas, Village And Post

Kurdayan, Merta, Dist. Nagaur (Raj.). (Aadhar No. 3967

0899 6474).

----Petitioners

Versus

1.

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

2.

Sho, P.s. Pushkar, Dist. Ajmer.

3.

Superintendent Of Police, Dist. Ajmer.

4.

Sagar Lohar S/o Sh. Heera Lal Lohar, B/c Lohar, R/o Opp.

Meda Ground, Pushkar, Dist. Ajmer (Raj.).

5.

Sho, P.s. Jaitaran, Dist. Pali.

6.

Superintendent Of Police, Dist. Pali.

7.

Sho, P.s. Merta City, Dist. Nagaur.

8.

Superintendent Of Police, Dist. Nagaur.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s)

:

None Present

For Respondent(s)

:

Mr. S.K. Bhati, PP

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

Order

10/01/2023

1.

The petitioners have preferred this criminal misc. petition

under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. 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.

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.

3.

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.

(2 of 3)

[CRLMP-865/2022]

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.

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.

(3 of 3)

[CRLMP-865/2022]

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 p