LiveLaw Gujarat High Court Monthly Digest: June 2026

Judgments/Orders

Freezing Bank Account Without Proving Account Holder's Involvement In Criminal Case Adversely Affects Fundamental Rights: Gujarat High Court

Case title: Arjun Kuruveetil Peethmbaran v/s The Police Inspector & Ors.

R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1961 of 2026

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 165

Directing the de-freezing of a man's bank account, the Gujarat High Court observed that while investigating agency has power to direct freezing, however without specifying the quantum of suspected amount or without establishing involvement of the account holder in any criminal activity, results in adversely affecting his fundamental rights.

The court was hearing a man's plea seeking de-freezing of his bank account over a cyber crime complaint pertaining to alleged suspicious transaction of Rs. 1100; in the interim the petitioner had sought a direction to the bank to permit him to operate the account by keeping only the disputed amount of 1,100/- on hold.

Person Accused Of Offences Not Mentioned Under Section 82(4) CrPC Not Deemed As Proclaimed Offender: Gujarat High Court

Case title: Rajeshbhai Laljibhai Patel v/s v/s State of Gujarat & Anr.

R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (QUASHING) NO. 7316 of 2026

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 166

The Gujarat High Court has said that a person accused of only those offences enumerated under Section 82(4) can be declared a proclaimed offender noting that the nature of the offences was serious also carrying the safeguard of an inquiry as provided under the provision.

It further said that a person accused of offences other than the ones under section 82(4) and against whom a proclamation has been published under section 82(1) can be called a 'Proclaimed Person'.

2013 Rape Case: Asaram Withdraws Plea For Extension Of Temporary Bail From Gujarat High Court

Case title: Asharam v/s State of Gujarat & Anr.

CR.MA/1/2026

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Gu) 167

Asaram, who has been convicted and sentenced to life by Gandhinagar court in a 2013 rape case, withdrew from Gujarat High Court on Friday (June 12) his application seeking extension of temporary bail.

The counsel appearing for Asaram submitted before a division bench of Justice Gita Gopi and Justice LS Pirzada that the Rajasthan High Court had recently upheld Asaram's conviction and life sentence in a separate rape case and he is presently in jail in Jodhpur

"Under instructions I may be permitted to withdraw the application for extension of temporary bail," the counsel said.

Electricity Company 'Absolutely Liable' In Electrocution Death Case, Can't Escape By Blaming Deceased's Negligence: Gujarat High Court

Case title: Gujarat Energy Transmission Company Ltd. through v/s Naniba WD/O Gemarsinh Rupsinh Sodha & Ors.

R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1310 of 2012

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Gu) 168

The Gujarat High Court has held that when energy transmitted through electricity line causes injury or death of a human being, who unknowingly comes in contact with it, then it is primary liability of the Electricity Company to compensate the sufferer as per the principle of absolute liability. [2026 LiveLaw (Gu) 168]

The court was hearing an appeal by Gujarat Energy Transmission Co. Ltd. (GETCO), challenging a judgment and decree dated 31.1.2012 passed by trial court which had directed GETCO to pay Rs.9,40,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till realization for the death of Gemarsinh Sodha.

After 35 Years, Gujarat High Court Rejects Baroda Royal Family's Claim Over Property Belonging To Temple Trust

Case title: Kishanji Maganji Thakore & Ors. v/s Collector of Baroda & Ors. and batch

R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1611 of 1991

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 169

The Gujarat High Court has upheld a 35-year-old Vadodara Court order dismissing a plea filed by the royal family of the erstwhile State of Baroda challenging orders passed by the charity commissioner's office which had declared that a parcel of land in Vadodara belongs to Shri Yavteshwar Mahadev Temple Trust. [2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 169]

The court was hearing a batch of appeals challenging a 1991 judgment of the Joint District Judge, Vadodara which had dismissed five applications filed by the respective appellants – original petitioners including the then Maharaja of Baroda as well as subsequent buyers of the land, confirming the 1985 judgment of the Joint Charity Commissioner, Baroda.

Gujarat High Court Quashes FIR Against Advocate, Finds He Was Falsely Implicated For Representing One Of The Accused

Case title: Mohammad Bilal Gulam Rasul Kagazi v/s State of Gujarat & Anr.

R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING & SET ASIDE FIR/ORDER) NO. 211 of 2020

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 170

The Gujarat High Court recently quashed an FIR against an advocate, after noting that the CCTV footage reflected that he was not present at the place where he had allegedly threatened the complainant. [2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 170]

The advocate claimed that the complainant had falsely implicated him as he represented one of the accused in the case lodged by complainant.

The complainant on the other alleged that the advocate had threatened him on the third floor of the Sessions Court. It was further alleged that the advocate had conspired with few persons and inflicted injuries with sword on the head of the complainant.

Family Courts Are Duty Bound To Accept 'Mubarat' Divorce Of Muslim Couple: Gujarat High Court

Case title: Shahnawaz Sirajuddin Siddiqui v/s Marufa

R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 768 of 2026

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 171

The Gujarat High Court has reiterated that when marriage between a Muslim couple, governed by the Shariat Law, is dissolved by Mubara'at Agreement, then Family Courts are duty bound to accept the agreement of the parties and to declare the dissolution of the marriage as agreed between parties. [2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 171]

A division bench of Justice Ilesh J Vora and Justice RT Vachhani in its order said:

"...when the marriage between two persons, who are governed by the Shariat Law, is dissolved by Mubara'at Agreement, the Family Courts are duty bound to accept the agreement of the parties and to declare the dissolution of the marriage as agreed between the parties. The High Court of Karnataka and other High Courts (Shabnam Parveen Ahmad vs. Mohammed Saliya Shaikh (Miscellaneous First Appeal No.4711 of 2022 dtd 26.03.2024), (Mohamed Saif Pasha vs. Madiha Arif (2021 SCC OnLine Madras 16570), on the identical issue, held and observed that, the Family Courts are duty bound to accept the agreements of the parties and declare the dissolution of the marriage as agreed".

After 47 Years, Gujarat High Court Holds Baroda's Narsinhji Temple As Public Trust; Rejects Claim By Late Priest's Son Over Temple Properties

Case title: Heirs of Mahant Dayaramdas- Bai Padma WD/o Dayaramdas (Deleted) & Ors. v/s Charity Commissioner & Ors.

R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 77 of 1979 and batch

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 172

The Gujarat High Court rejected the 47-year-old appeals filed by the legal heirs of the late priest of Narsinhji temple in Baroda who had claimed that the properties of the temple were private properties and belonged to him. [2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 172]

In doing so the court held that the temple of Lord Narsinhji is a public trust and the appellant, the son of the late Mahant, was neither legally appointed priest of the temple nor was he declared as a Chela (disciple) of the late Mahant. The court further held that appellant had not produced any evidence to prove his case.

Justice JC Doshi observed:

"...the temple of Lord Narsinhji is a public trust and the deity is a public deity is no more res-integra. The issue was squarely decided by the Division Bench of this Court...the status of late Mahant Dayaram, who at the relevant time was the appellant, was no more than a Pujari of the temple and the respondents therein were held to be the trustees of the public trust...The present appellant – Mr. Vijay is neither legally appointed Poojari of the temple nor he is declared as a Chela of the late Mahant Dayaram".

Family Of Authorised Catering Hawker Who Fell From Train Entitled To Compensation Under Railways Act: Gujarat High Court

Case title: Union of India v/s Meenadevi W/O Hariprasad Gupta & Ors.

R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 507 of 2024

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 173

The Gujarat High Court has upheld an order holding that an authorized hawker employed for catering service by the Railways is entitled to accident compensation under the Railways Act. [2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 173]

In doing so the court upheld an order passed by the Railway Tribunal granting compensation to the wife of deceased man employed by catering company, who had died after he fell from a running train while crossing compartments.

Justice JC Doshi observed that Railway administration failed to prove that deceased had attempted suicide or attempted no cause injury despite knowing damage. It said that the principle of 'no fault' liability fundamentally displaces traditional causation requirements, establishing that compensation is available irrespective of fault attribution.

Section 66E IT Act | Clicking Photos Of Question Paper During Exam & Sending It Via WhatsApp Not Violation Of Privacy: Gujarat High Court

Case title: Rahul Babulal Purohit & Anr. v/s State of Gujarat & Anr.

R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING & SET ASIDE FIR/ORDER) NO. 8320 of 2022

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 174

The Gujarat High Court has quashed charge of violation of privacy under Information Technology Act lodged against two men, wherein one of them was accused of clicking photographs of a question paper during an examination and sending it to his co-accused brother via WhatsApp. [2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 174]

The applicants had sought quashing of a November 26, 2018 FIR for the offences punishable under Sections 188(Disobedience to order duly promulgated by public servant) and 120-B (criminal conspiracy) IPC as well as under Section 66-E (Punishment for violation of privacy) of Information Technology Act

Gujarat High Court Quashes Abetment Of Suicide FIR, Says Accused Lodging Land Grab Case Against Deceased Not Enough To Invoke Offence

Case title: Rakeshkumar Ramanbhai Gohil v/s State of Gujarat & Anr.

R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING & SET ASIDE FIR/ORDER) NO. 23600 of 2022

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 175

The Gujarat High Court quashed an FIR against a man accused of abetting complainant's suicide against whom the former had lodged a land grab case, observing merely lodging of land grabbing complaint does not mean that it was intended to compel the deceased to commit suicide as the petitioner was only invoking legal right. [2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 175]

The petitioner had sought quashing of an FIR under Sections 306(abetment of suicide), 506(2) (criminal intimidation) and 120B (criminal conspiracy) IPC over allegations of harassing the deceased by lodging a land grabbing against the latter pursuant to which the deceased allegedly committed suicide.

Gujarat High Court Asks State To Decide In 6 Months Haren Pandya Murder Convict's Remission Plea

Case title: Mohammed Asgarali Mohammad Vajirali v/s State of Gujarat & Ors.

R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (DIRECTION) NO. 12305 of 2025,

CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (PAROLE LEAVE) NO. 1 of 2025 In R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 12305 of 2025

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 176

The Gujarat High Court has asked the state government to decide within six months the remission plea filed by Mohammed Asgar Ali convicted and sentenced to life for the murder of former state Home Minister Haren Pandya. [2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 176]

Justice MR Mengdey in his order observed that from the jail remarks submitted on record it appeared that the process for consideration of the petitioner's case for grant of remission is underway and the opinion from the Advisory Committee has been received and the same shall be put up before the concerned authority in the near future.