Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 139 - 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 164
Nominal Index
Union of India & Ors. v/s Lilavantiben B Sonegra, 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 139
Mahil Infra A Partnership Firm v/s Airport Authority of India & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 140
State of Gujarat v/s Fillupbhai Magalbhai Mistry & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 141
Champaklal Naranji Patel v/s State of Gujarat & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 142
Asim @ Munmun @ Asif Abdulkarim Solanki v/s State of Gujarat, 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 143
Harishchandra R Pednekar (Deceased) Through Legal Heirs & Ors. v/s Bhaskar R Pednekar (Since Deceased Thru Legal Heirs) & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 144
Union of India & Ors v/s Bhanuben w/o Manojbhai Dhirubhai Rathod, 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 145
Vasudev Kantilal Mahesuriya & Ors. v/s Mohanlal Jethalal Purohit & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 146
Narayan @ Narayan Sai v/s State of Gujarat & Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 147
Aksharbhai Rameshbhai Baraiya & Ors. v/s State of Gujarat and batch, 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 148
Jayprakash Ghastelal v/s Union of India through General Manager, 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 149
X v/s Y & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 150
Ankush Kapoor v/s NIA & ANR, 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 151
Dolly Khilankumar Vadalia Nee Dolly Ketan Barai v/s Union of India & ORS., 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 152
Bharatbhai Ghanshyambhai Shah v/s State of Gujarat, 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 153
Shardaben Maganbhai Zala & Ors. v/s Divisional Controller, 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 154
Patel Jashiben Govindbhai Wife of Decd. & Ors. v/s Shaitan Singh & Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 155
X v/s High Court of Gujarat Through Registrar General, 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 156
AnilKumar Chimanlal Dixit & Ors. v/s State of Gujarat, 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 157
Himanshu Parsottambhai Parmar v/s State of Gujarat, 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 158
Upendra Kumar Jaypalsinh v/s State of Gujarat, 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 159
Kunal Rameshbhai Kalyani v/s State of Gujarat & Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 160
Ajay Jagdishbhai Pordiya v/s State of Gujarat, 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 161
Gopiben Bhagvanbhai Patel & Ors. v/s State of Gujarat & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 162
Pranav Prabhudas Chandarana v/s State of Gujarat & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 163
Tofik Shaikh v State of Gujarat, 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 164
Judgments/Orders
Case title: Union of India & Ors. v/s Lilavantiben B Sonegra
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10722 of 2024
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 139
The Gujarat High Court rejected Railways challenge to Central Administrative Tribunal's order directing payment of family pension to deceased employee's daughter— whose marriage was dissolved via customary divorce.
The father of the respondent daughter was an employee of the Railways, who retired on 05.10.1971 on attaining the age of superannuation. The daughter marriage ended in a "customary divorce" entered into between her and her husband on 12.10.1978. Thus during the father's lifetime the daughter's marriage stood dissolved by virtue of the customary divorce.
Case title: Mahil Infra A Partnership Firm v/s Airport Authority of India & Ors.
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3549 of 2024 and connected petitions
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 140
The Gujarat High Court has directed an aeronautical survey of real-estate properties located near Ahmedabad International Airport which are alleged to be in violation of the prescribed elevation level, quashing notices which directed removal of construction prior to conduct of such survey.
The court was hearing a batch of petitions seeking directions to the Airport Authority of India to get an aeronautical study by International Civil Aviation Organization at the expense of the petitioner, as prescribed in the Ministry of Civil Aviation (Height Restrictions for Safeguarding of Aircraft Operations) Rules, 2015, and thereafter take decision on demolition of construction as may be found infringing the safety standards for aircraft operations.
Case title: State of Gujarat v/s Fillupbhai Magalbhai Mistry & Ors.
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 697 of 2003
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 141
The Gujarat High Court has upheld the acquittal of five persons in a post 2002 Godhra train burning-riots case, who were accused of throwing the deceased alive into a fire, observing that the witnesses could not identify that the accused were the rioters who had committed the alleged act.
The court noted that witnesses had categorically stated that they did not know the identity of the persons who committed the offence as the incident was carried out by a large mob of approx 500 people and also the eyewitness's deposition was silent on any "specific overt act or participation of the accused".
Case title: Champaklal Naranji Patel v/s State of Gujarat & Ors.
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 15368 of 2010
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 142
The Gujarat High Court has held that state enactment Gujarat Water & Gas Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act 2000 is not repugnant to the central enactment Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 finding that the provisions of the two laws are pari-materia.
The court was considering whether 2000 Act is within the legislative competence of the State legislature and if its competence can be traced to Entry 42 of List III (Concurrent List) of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India.
Case title: Asim @ Munmun @ Asif Abdulkarim Solanki v/s State of Gujarat
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL (AGAINST CONVICTION) NO. 249 of 2019 and R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 417 of 2019
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 143
The Gujarat High Court acquitted a man in a murder case after observing that he had raised a plea of alibi which was supported by 13 independent witnesses, however this material was "deliberately suppressed" and not produced along with the charge-sheet.
In doing so the court observed that the Investigating Officer failed to place the material on record before the trial court amounting to dereliction of duty.
The court observed that despite the accused no. 1 taking the plea of alibi from the very inception, neither the Investigating Officer, nor the Public Prosecutor/special Public Prosecutor, nor the Presiding Officer of the trial Court thought it fit to properly examine or place on record the material collected during the investigation concerning the said plea, "thereby failing to make efforts to reach at the truth".
Case title: Harishchandra R Pednekar (Deceased) Through Legal Heirs & Ors. v/s Bhaskar R Pednekar (Since Deceased Thru Legal Heirs) & Ors.
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1320 of 1995
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 144
The Gujarat High Court quashed probate proceedings in favour of "beneficiary" of a Will, noting he was unable to dispel various suspicious circumstances including sequence of obtaining signatures from the deceased and attesting witnesses, the physical presence of parties and the testator's medical condition at that time.
In doing so the court reiterated that mere registration of will does not prove its genuineness; the propounder/beneficiary must dispel suspicious circumstances by leading evidence.
Justice JC Doshi referred to Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act and said that it is an instrument declaring last testimony of the deceased to dispose of his property before his death and is a legally acknowledged mode of bequeathing a testator's property during his life time to be acted upon his death and carries with it a element of sanctity.
Case title: Union of India & Ors v/s Bhanuben w/o Manojbhai Dhirubhai Rathod
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5667 of 2023
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 145
The Gujarat High Court has observed that a deceased Railway employee's widow is legally entitled to challenge penalty imposed on her husband, and she and his family members are the real aggrieved persons and have the legal right to remove the stigma attached to their breadwinner.
The court passed the order in Railway's plea against a Central Administrative Tribunal's order quashing penalty of removal from service imposed on deceased employee after noting that the employee had not been heard. The CAT had directed the Railways to communicate order of imposition of penalty within one month to the employee's widow and had permitted to file a representation. Against this Railways had moved the high court.
Case title: Vasudev Kantilal Mahesuriya & Ors. v/s Mohanlal Jethalal Purohit & Ors.
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 55 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 146
The Gujarat High Court has reiterated that posthumus filing of income tax return can be considered for deciding quantum of compensation in a motor accident claim.
In doing so the court partly allowed an appeal for enhancement of compensation, after noting that the Motor Accident Tribunal had not considered the income of deceased reflected in the income tax return for assessment year 2017-2018 filed posthumously.
Case title: Narayan @ Narayan Sai v/s State of Gujarat & Anr.
CR.MA/4/2025(FOR SUSPENSION OF SENTENCE) PENDING In R/CR.A/1756/2019
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 147
The Gujarat High Court on Monday (May 4) dismissed Narayan Sai's plea seeking suspension of life sentence in a rape case, in which he was convicted by a Surat sessions court in 2019, prima facie noting that he was not interested in expeditious hearing of his appeal challenging conviction and had adopted delay tactics.
On the applicant's contention that he had undergone 11 years of incarceration and there was delay in hearing of his criminal appeal, a division bench of Justice Ilesh J Vora and Justice RT Vachhani in its order noted:
"It is no doubt true that, the applicant has undergone 11 years of his jail term. However, the fact remains that, since 2019 to till date, the applicant-convict has not cooperated in final hearing of the appeal. He had tried to get either temporary bail or permanent bail pending the appeal by filing numerous applications. In the year of 2021, while rejecting the bail application on merits, this Court has fixed the appeal for final hearing. However, it is on record that, the applicant-accused is never ready for hearing the appeal".
Case title: Aksharbhai Rameshbhai Baraiya & Ors. v/s State of Gujarat and batch
R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (AGAINST ORDER PASSED BY SUBORDINATE COURT) NO. 908 of 2026 & connected petitions
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 148
The Gujarat High Court granted relief to various persons booked under Gujarat Public Examination (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act over allegations of using "dummy candidates" for appearing in various public exams, noting that the Act which came into force in March 2023 was not restrospectively applicable.
The court was hearing petitions challenging sessions court order refusing to discharge the accused of offences under Sections 12(1), 12(3) and 12(4) (which deals with Offences and penalties) of the Gujarat Public Examination (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act.
Case title: Jayprakash Ghastelal v/s Union of India through General Manager
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 159 of 2022
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 149
The Gujarat High Court has held that a 9-month foetus is treated as a child and thus parent of a still-born child can claim accident compensation under the Railways Act, clarifying that the death of a child in womb would be "treated as independent accident apart from death of mother".
In doing so the court granted compensation to the father– who lost his pregnant wife who died after falling from a running train–for the loss of the child as well due to the accident.
Justice JC Doshi in his order referred to various judgments and observed:
"Above being exposition of law, the question raised hereinbefore remain no more res-integra. Since the foetus is treated as child, death of child would be treated as independent accident apart from death of mother. Stillborn child for all purpose is person and entitled to claim compensation under Railways Act. Further, child can plead cause of action through parents. Liberal interpretation of law provides that still-born child being victim of accident is entitled to claim compensation. Therefore, according to this Court, impugned order passed by learned Tribunal suffers from patent illegality and unjustified. In the case on hand deceased Usha Devi at the time of untoward incident, was carrying 9 month pregnancy. Foetus of nine month for all the purpose is a child in existence. Pragmatic and liberal interpretation of definition of bona fide passenger shall also include stillborn child".
Case title: X v/s Y & Ors.
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (RECALL) NO. 15576 of 2024 In R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION/824/2022
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 150
The Gujarat High Court has held that payment of EMI or loan repayment by the father cannot reduce his liability to maintain his children, adding that he has to provide for expenses towards food, clothing, residence, medical needs of the children and even tuition expenses.
In doing so the court directed the father to maintain his three minor triplets from his first marriage, along with his other dependents.
Case title: Ankush Kapoor v/s NIA & ANR
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 1104 of 2026 In
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 151
The Gujarat High Court has condoned 146 day delay in filing appeal against trial court order extending accused's judicial custody over non-completion of investigation within 90 days under UAPA and NDPS Act.
A division bench of Justice Ilesh J Vora and Justice RT Vachhani referred to Section 21(5) of the NI Act which states that every appeal under this section shall be preferred within 30 days from the date of the judgment, sentence or order appealed from.
Case title: Dolly Khilankumar Vadalia Nee Dolly Ketan Barai v/s Union of India & ORS.
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9457 of 2025
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 152
The Gujarat High Court dismissed a Mozambique-born woman's plea, residing in Rajkot, seeking issuance of Indian passport, after noting that the petitioner was unable to prove Indian citizenship by birth or by descent as required under the Citizenship Act.
The court noted that the petitioner had failed to provide proof of registration of her birth at an Indian Consulate within one year of birth or thereafter with the approval of the Central Government.
Justice Hemant M Prachchhak in his order said:
"The petitioner applied for the passport before the respondent authority. However, the respondent authority raised objections on the ground that the petitioner was born in Mozambique and required her to furnish documents such as cancellation of the emergency certificate, consular registration of birth, or proof of Indian citizenship. Thereafter, the petitioner approached the High Commission of Mozambique and was informed that there is no procedure for cancellation of the emergency certificate and that she is not a citizen of Mozambique.
Upon examination of petitioner's application, the authority found that petitioner does not qualify as an Indian citizen under the proviso to Section 4(1)(b) of the Citizenship Act, 1955, as petitioner failed to provide proof of registration of her birth at an Indian Consulate within one year of birth or thereafter with the approval of the Central Government. The petitioner's passport application was closed and she was directed to produce a certificate of registration or naturalization of Indian citizenship. It also appears from the record that the parents of the petitioner had not followed the procedure to acquire Indian citizenship by descent for the petitioner when the petitioner was born".
Case title: Bharatbhai Ghanshyambhai Shah v/s State of Gujarat
R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (AGAINST ORDER PASSED BY SUBORDINATE COURT) NO. 264 of 2013
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 153
The Gujarat High Court discharged the financier of a building in Ahmedabad, for offence of culpable homicide and criminal conspiracy, booked after the building suffered severe damage in the 2001 earthquake in the State claiming 11 lives.
In doing so the court said that charge-sheet did not disclose any evidence to suggest that the petitioner was either the owner, developer, or contractor of the construction. It further ruled that to invoke Section 304 IPC, prosecution had to prove existence of mens rea/intention that the act was likely to cause death which was not established herein.
Case title: Shardaben Maganbhai Zala & Ors. v/s Divisional Controller
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1315 of 2020, R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 538 of 2020
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 154
The Gujarat High Court upheld an order by Workmen's Compensation Commissioner who applied principle of notional extension of employment and awarded over Rs. 6 Lakh to the kin of a deceased driver of transport corporation who accidentally fell off the roof of a bus while sleeping in absence of a rest room.
In doing so the court noted that the Corporation had not led any evidence prohibiting the driver from staying with the bus, or prescribing what should be done when rest rooms are not available in remote villages, or how the security of the bus is to be maintained in such places where proper bus stand facilities are not available.
Case title: Patel Jashiben Govindbhai Wife of Decd. & Ors. v/s Shaitan Singh & Anr.
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1902 of 2022
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 155
The Gujarat High Court overturned the finding of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal attributing contributory negligence to the driver of a two-wheeler who had met with an accident with a stationary truck at night time parked without any indicator, parking signal or obstruction.
In doing so the court held that the driver of the truck was solely negligent for the accident and also enhanced the compensation from Rs. 5 Lakh to over Rs. 9 Lakh.
Case title: X v/s High Court of Gujarat Through Registrar General
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5112 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 156
The Gujarat High Court has recommended initiation of contempt proceedings against an additional district judge who alleged in his written submissions asserting that a senior high court judge has "good control over all the branches of the High Court" and that he has "control of his junior judges".
This the court said is an act which scandalizes and lowers the authority of the Court and thus the high court directed that the matter be placed before the concerned bench which has the contempt roster for further proceedings.
Case title: AnilKumar Chimanlal Dixit & Ors. v/s State of Gujarat
R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (AGAINST ORDER PASSED BY SUBORDINATE COURT) NO. 381 of 2019
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 157
The Gujarat High Court discharged four engineers of culpable homicide booked for death of 11 girls who died after a staircase collapsed in the government girls hostel in 2007, noting that there was no intention or knowledge on their part to invoke Section 304IPC.
The court however charged the accused persons for causing death by negligence under IPC Section 304A noting that the probe revealed that the accused did not take due care in maintaining standard of construction work at the relevant point of time.
For context, Section 304A pertains to causing death by negligence, and states that whoever causes the death of any person by doing any rash or negligent act not amounting to culpable homicide is punished under this provision.
Case title: Himanshu Parsottambhai Parmar v/s State of Gujarat
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 15120 of 2025
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 158
The Gujarat High Court dismissed an RTI applicant's plea seeking information concerning teaching posts at Maharaja Sayajirao University of Baroda, observing that he had been supplied copies of the documents and his insistence on being supplied original documents is not within the purview of the CPIO.
Justice Hemant M Prachchhak in his order noted:
"This Court has considered the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions and perused the material placed on record. On perusal of the affidavit-in-reply, the respondent – authority has clarified that the information which was sought for by the petitioner was supplied, as per the order passed by the Commission. It is also observed by the authorities that the petitioner was in habit of making an application under the provisions of the RTI Act and as many as more than 25 applications have been filed one after another...
In view of the above, the information is required to be provided under the RTI Act includes various records, documents, circulars etc. which can be accessed by the Public Authority under any other law for the time being in force. Thus, the responsibility of the CPIO is discharged under the RTI Act upon providing all such information and documents that may be accessible to him. Meaning thereby that the document which is accessible to the respondents, they have already supplied the copy thereof to the petitioner, but the insistence of the petitioner that the original document is to be supplied is not purview of the CPIO – respondent No.1 and, therefore, the contention raised by the party-in-person is not tenable in the eyes of law and, therefore, the petition being meritless deserves to be dismissed".
Case title: Upendra Kumar Jaypalsinh v/s State of Gujarat
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL) NO. 11058 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 159
The Gujarat High Court denied anticipatory bail to a weapons clerk working in Uttar Pradesh government department in Etah, accused of forging arms licenses along with co-accused by allegedly misusing Government of India's NDAL-ALIS portal and receiving over Rs.98 Lakh as cash in such illegal transaction.
NDAL-ALIS stands for National Database of Arms Licenses-Arms License Issuance System which is developed by the Ministry of Home Affairs to facilitate entrepreneurs and industries applying for licenses related to manufacture of arms and ammunition.
The court was hearing the clerk's anticipatory bail plea in a case pertaining to alleged bogus arms licences issued during 2019 to 2022. The prosecution had alleged that such forged arms licences were used on a large scale for possessing arms, revolvers, pistols and live cartridges.
Case title: Kunal Rameshbhai Kalyani v/s State of Gujarat & Anr.
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING & SET ASIDE FIR/ORDER) NO. 7256 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 160
The Gujarat High Court refused to quash a Secition 69 BNS FIR lodged against a man–stated to be permanent resident of Zambia, accused of having sexual intercourse with the complainant deceitfully over false promise of marriage.
In doing so the court rejected the accused's contention that his mother did not agree to the relationship observing that this was not a bonafide reason.
Justice MK Thakker in her order said:
"As per the recital of the FIR, the complainant was kept in the room from 12.02.2022 to 14.02.2024, and the promise to marry with her in the month of December 2024, the applicant indulged into physical relations. Subsequently, it was informed that the mother of the applicant is not agreed with the relations the applicant denied to marry with the victim. Whether this act or the explanation can suggest that the applicant really wanted to marry with the victim or had malafide motives? It emerges from the allegations that only to satisfy his lust the false promise of marriage was given to the complainant though he had no intention to marry with her. Merely giving the explanation that mother is not agreed for the marriage cannot be considered to be bonafide reason or the circumstances which is beyond the control of the applicant.It is the applicant who before indulging into the relations could have taken the sense of the mother, however, denying subsequently smokes of malafide motive of the applicant".
Case title: Ajay Jagdishbhai Pordiya v/s State of Gujarat
R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (AGAINST ORDER PASSED BY SUBORDINATE COURT) NO. 926 of 2017
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 161
The Gujarat High Court has discharged a man booked for kidnapping in 2014 after noting that the victim, who was on the verge of attaining majority, had voluntarily left her parental home.
An FIR was lodged in 2014 under Sections 363(kidnapping) and 366(kidnapping, abducting, or inducing a woman with the intent to compel her into marriage against her will etc.,) IPC after the complainant alleged that her second daughter was not found in their house and when she called on her daughter's mobile phone, the applicant allegedly received the call and answered that the victim is with his two brothers.
The complainant got suspicion that the victim might have been abducted by the applicant and thus FIR was filed. After carrying out investigation, the Investigating Officer filed the charge-sheet and the case came to be committed to the Sessions Court. The applicant filed an application seeking discharge which came to be dismissed by the Sessions Court in 2017, against which he moved the high court.
Case title: Gopiben Bhagvanbhai Patel & Ors. v/s State of Gujarat & Ors.
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 14155 of 2025
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 162
The Gujarat High Court has held that non-availability of promotional posts cannot be a ground to deny payment of higher grade arrears to eligible school teachers.
The court thus directed the State government to pay arrears of salary to primary school teachers who became eligible to higher pay scale after 9 years of service, reiterating that payment of arrears cannot be contingent on availability of Education Inspector's post in the concerned school board.
Justice Nirzar S Desai noted that the present case was covered by a decision of the high court in 2024 wherein the State government was directed to pay arrears to the petitioners therein. That decision was challenged before the division bench in appeal by the State government which was dismissed and hence 2024 order had attained finality.
Case title: Pranav Prabhudas Chandarana v/s State of Gujarat & Ors.
R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (HABEAS CORPUS) NO. 7423 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 163
The Gujarat High Court in an interim order on Monday (May 25) permitted a detained man to cast his vote in the election to the post of Chairman and Vice Chairman of Junagadh Taluka Panchayat, observing that the positions were important wherein even a single vote may swing the contest one way or the other.
The court was hearing the man's habeas corpus plea wherein he contended that an FIR was registered and he was detained on 24.05.2026 whereas the election is slated to be held at 11:00 A.M today. The State submitted that FIR has been lodged on 22.05.2026 and therefore, the petition is filed belatedly only to stall the election process.
Case Title: Tofik Shaikh v State of Gujarat
R/SCR.A/7352/2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 164
The Gujarat High Court dismissed a petition seeking immediate registration of an FIR in an alleged custodial death case of a man, while permitting the kin of the deceased to take recourse to the statutory remedies available to them under BNSS.
In doing so the court observed that while Supreme Court's Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh judgment mandates registration of an FIR when a cognizable offence is disclosed, it does not provide a separate mechanism if police refuses to lodge an FIR nor there is a mandate provided that on failure of lodging an FIR the next of kin can directly invoke Article 226 jurisdiction of the high court.