Protection of life and liberty for all is mandatory under the law: High court of Rajasthan

 on 03 07 2021 at 11:28:01 AM HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPURS.B. Criminal MiscellaneousNo. 3226 20211. Bhupendra Singh Gurjar S o Shri Ramprakash Gurjar Aged About 21 Years R o Balakhera Police Station NadotiTehsil Nadoti District KarauliPetitionersVersus1. State Of Rajasthan Through Pp2. Director General Of Police Rajasthan Jaipur3. Superintendent Of Police Karauli District Karauli: Mr. Vishnu Bohra through VCFor Respondent(s): Mr. Pankaj Agarwal PPHON BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR VYAS[CRLMP 3226 2021]1.This Petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. forprotection to life and personal liberty of the petitioners.2.Heard learned counsel for the petitioners through videoconferencing.3.It has been submitted on behalf of learned counsel for thepetitioners that both the petitioners are major unmarried andthey are living in a live in relationship as per their own free will.Petitioner No.2 has executed an affidavit regarding live inrelationship which is duly attested by Notary Public but theprivate respondents are threatening the petitioners and their lifeand liberty is in danger. Hence this petition for security andprotection of their life and liberty.4.Learned Public Prosecutor submits that appropriate directionsmay be issued.5.Heard. Perused the record available on file.6.It is well settled legal position as expounded by the Hon’bleSupreme Court of India in Lata Singh Vs. State of UPS. Khushboo Vs. Kanniammal5 SCC 600] Indra Sarma Vs. VKV Sarma15 SCC 755] and ShafinJahan Vs. Asokan KM & Ors.16 SCC 368] that the societycannot determine how individuals live their lives especially whenthey are major irrespective of the fact that the relation betweentwo major individuals may be termed as immoral and unsocial.Thus life and personal liberty of the individuals has to beprotected except according to procedure established by law asmandated by Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Further as per[CRLMP 3226 2021]Section 29 of Rajasthan Police Act 2007 every police officer isduty bound to protect the life and liberty of the citizens.7.Therefore in light of above legal position and having regardto the above submissions but without expressing any opinion onthe genuineness or correctness of the allegations made by thepetitioners this petition is disposed of with the direction thatlearned counsel for the petitioners shall send a copy of the petitionalong with its annexures to the Station House Officer of concernedPolice Station through e mail and on receipt of the same theStation House Officer concerned shall treat it as a complaint andafter due enquiry he shall take necessary preventive measuresand other steps to ensure safety and security of the petitioners inaccordance with law.8.However as a precautionary note it is made clear that thisorder shall not come in the way of civil criminal case if any andsuch case would take its own course as per law.(MANOJ KUMAR VYASJSunita Kanwar 38 

Summary: Protection of life and liberty is a fundamental right under article 21 and available to all, therefore it is the duty of the state to protect the same. This judgment and final order were pronounced by the high court of Rajasthan, bench at Jaipur, S.B. criminal miscellaneous (petition) No. 3226/2021, Bhupendra Singh and Samarin khan vs. the state of Rajasthan, this petition has been filed under section 482 of Crpc (saving of the inherent power of the high court) for the protection of life and liberty of the petitioners. The session was held through a virtual platform due to covid-19. According to the case, the petitioners both are major (above 18) and unmarried and currently are in a live-in relationship as per their own free will i.e., cohabitation where they live together even though they are unmarried it is generally common in the western world but it is not considered illegal under the Indian law. As a documented evidence the petitioners have executed an affidavit regarding their free will to a live-in relationship attested by the notary public. Now the respondents whose names are not disclosed are accused of threatening and putting the life and liberty of the petitioners in danger. Therefore, the petitioners have filed this petition for the security and protection of their life and liberty. The court referred to a well-settled case as expounded by the hon ’able Supreme Court of India in Lata Singh Vs. State of UP [AIR 2006SC 2522], S. Khushboo Vs. Kanniammal [(2010) 5 SCC 600], Indra Sarma Vs. VKV Sarma [(2013) 15 SCC 755] and ShafinJahan Vs. Asokan KM &amp; Ors. (2018) 16 SCC 368. The court held that society is not deemed to determine the manner in which an individual can live his or her life however only if the individual is a major. The decorum established by the society is not to be taken into account even though the relation between the individuals may seem immoral and unsocial according to the society. But it is not illegal under Indian law. Therefore, the life and personal liberty of the individuals has to be protected except according to the procedure that has been established by the law which is mandated in the constitution of India under Article 21(protection of life and liberty). The court also upheld that under section 29 of the Rajasthan police act,2007 it is the duty of each and every police officer to protect the life and the liberty of the citizens of this country. They are bound by law to not neglect the same.