GURDEEP SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) There is an unusual prayer made in this petition, wherein petitioner No.1, allegedly born on 26.11.1993, aged 23 years, educated upto 10+2, is serving in the Home Guard and petitioner No.2, allegedly born on 8.12.1998, presently 17 years and 3 months old and is educated upto 10+1. Petitioner No.1 belongs to Kumhar caste (BC), whereas petitioner No.2 is a Bishnoi. They have approached this Court seeking direction to respondents No.1 to 3 to grant them police protection to save their life and liberty which is allegedly being threatened at the hands of respondents No.4 to 8, who are the relatives of petitioner No.2. It is averred in the petition that the petitioners have not yet been married as they have planned to get married after petitioner No.2 attains the age of majority i.e. 18 years of age but they are afraid that before petitioner No.2 becomes major, she may not be got married by the private respondents. Petitioner No.2 has also made allegation against her mother for having illicit relations with respondent No.5.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that Article 21 of the Constitution of India provides that "no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to a procedure established by law". He has relied upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court rendered in the case of Rajwinder Kaur and another Vs. State of Punjab and others, 2014 4 RCR(Cri) 785, and the two judgments of Single Bench, namely, Rukshana and another Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi and others, 2007 3 RCR(Cri) 542 and Ridhwana and another Vs. U.T. Administration and others, 2008 4 RCR(Cri) 242. It is submitted that the petitioners have a constitutional right and it is an obligation on the part of the State to protect their life and liberty, which is being threatened by respondents No.4 to 8 as they are against their marriage.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the record.