The Rajasthan High Court has underscored that the right to life under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution includes the right to live with dignity, which encompasses attending once-in-a-lifetime family events, such as a father’s right to attend his son’s wedding.

The Single-Bench of Justice Arun Monga observed, "I am of the view that Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which guarantees the right to life, irrespective of whether he is an accused or under trial, also encompasses the right to dignity of attending once in a lifetime family rituals, i.e., the right of a father to attend marriage of his son herein. Right to life does not mean mere right to exist but to live with dignity. Such a right cannot be and ought not be curtailed on the ground that father of the petitioner is since an accused pending case."

The Court was hearing a petition filed on behalf of a man in judicial custody for six years due to multiple FIRs alleging financial misappropriation linked to the Kheteshwar Urban Credit Cooperative Society.

The petitioner, acting as his father’s guardian ad litem, sought interim bail for his father to attend his wedding.

The Court observed that Article 21 ensures the Right to Life, which is not limited to mere survival but includes the dignity of participating in family milestones. The Bench highlighted that “such a right cannot be and ought not to be curtailed” merely because the individual is an accused.

The Court further emphasized the importance of the father’s presence at the wedding, both to bless the couple and to maintain his standing within the family and society. Noting that the prosecution’s evidence was primarily documentary and already seized, the Single-Judge concluded that the accused posed no flight risk or threat of tampering with evidence.

"Petitioner’s father is a person with strong family ties and is not a flight risk. Nature of prosecution evidence is mostly allIn the premise, documentary in nature, which has been seized, and there is no likelihood of tempering with the same.... since the date of marriage is not disputed, the father of the petitioner indeed requires to be personally present at the time of marriage of his son. His presence will be crucial to facilitate marriage arrangements of his son and to bless the newlyweds to be and to upkeep his dignity with his family and society," the Bench said.

Consequently, the Court allowed the petition and granted the accused father interim bail for 15 days, ensuring he could attend his son’s wedding and uphold his dignity within his family. "Accordingly, the instant petition is allowed. The petitioner’s father, Shaitan Singh Rajpurohit, is granted the benefit of interim bail for a period of 15 days upon furnishing bail bonds and sureties to the satisfaction of the Superintendent of District Jail, Sirohi. During this period, the father of the petitioner shall remain within the territorial jurisdiction of Sirohi," the Court said.

The Bench further clarified, "It is made clear that the instant order shall be applicable qua all the FIR’s, the recital of which has been given in the present petition. Furthermore, the Jailor/ Superintendent shall not insist on the insolvency certificate as a part of the condition in the bail bond. The petitioner shall surrender on completion of period of interim bail w.e.f. the date of his release from jail and shall report to the Superintendent of District Jail on or before 5:00 PM on the date of surrender."

Cause Title: Yudhishter Singh Rajpurohit v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. [Neutral Citation No. 2024:RJ-JD:44012]

Appearance:-

Petitioner: Advocates Subham Ojha, Tanay Sharma

Respondent: Public Prosecutor Vikram Rajpurohit

Click here to read/download the Order


Justice Arun MongaRajasthan High Court

Sukriti Mishra