Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 105 - 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 138Nominal IndexPatel Inn and Travels Private Limited v/s Bank of India, 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 105ArvindSingh GangaSingh Solanki v/s State of Gujarat & Batch, 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 106X v/s State of Gujarat & Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 107Yusufbhai Jivanbhai Patel @ Mahendrabhai Jivabhai Vasava & Ors. v/s State of Gujarat, 2026...
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 105 - 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 138
Nominal Index
Patel Inn and Travels Private Limited v/s Bank of India, 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 105
ArvindSingh GangaSingh Solanki v/s State of Gujarat & Batch, 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 106
X v/s State of Gujarat & Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 107
Yusufbhai Jivanbhai Patel @ Mahendrabhai Jivabhai Vasava & Ors. v/s State of Gujarat, 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 108
Jayesh Batukhai Patel (Vanani) v/s State of Gujarat & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 109
Jitendrakumar Ambalal Kondi v/s State of Gujarat & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 110
X v/s State of Gujarat, 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 111
Harpreet Singh Talwar @ Kabir Talwar v/s State of Gujarat & Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 112
Varsha Mukhesbhai Katara v/s State of Election Commission through Secretary & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 113
Dhruti Vinubhai Dodiya v/s State of Gujarat & Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 114
Sanjaybhai Mangalbhai Gadhavi v/s State Election Commission & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 115
Joshi Umang Vijaykumar v/s Union of India & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 116
Manishkumar Shivlal Chuahan v/s State of Gujarat, 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 117
State of Gujarat v/s Baldevbhai Budhaji Dhulaji Chauhan (Thakor), 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 118
H I Majamudar Intelligence Officer v/s Santosh Pandurang Shetty & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 119
Employees State Insurance Corporation v/s Sudhaben Ramanbhai Patel & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 120
Siddhant @ Samadhan Kevalrao Jagtap v/s State of Gujarat, 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 121
Deep Jayesgbhai Indravadan Soni v/s State of Gujarat, 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 122
Sadhu Falguni Miteshkumar v/s State of Gujarat, 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 123
Stevan Bhanubhai Macwan & Anr. v/s State of Gujarat, 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 124
Premjibhai Hirabhai Gohil v/s State of Gujarat, 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 125
GEB v/s Nirmal Rajendra Madela ,WD/O Rajendra Sitaram Mandela & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 126
X v/s Y & Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 127
Sant Shri Asharam Ashram through Trustee and Authorized Signatory Rajeshkumar Shadilal Bharti v/s State of Gujarat & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 128
Namori Hajibhai Bukera v/s State of Gujarat, 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 129
Reliance Industries Ltd & Anr. v/s State of Gujarat & Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 130
Miskinbanu Jahidkhan Pathan & Ors. v/s Alisher Subhanali Ansari & Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 131
Pravinbanu Ibrahim Sultan Mamrej Kureshi v/s State of Gujarat, 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 132
Dilipsinh @ Dako Kishorsinh Rathod & Ors. v/s State of Gujarat, 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 133
Vasantbhai Premjibhai Vekariya v/s State of Gujarat & Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 134
Seventh Day Adventist Higher Secondary School & Ors. State of Gujarat & Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 135
X & Anr v/s NA, 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 136
Union of India v/s Mandabai w/o Sukhdev Chavan (Mother of Decd), 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 137
Manojbhai Kachrabhai Vasoya v/s State of Gujarat & Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 138
Judgments/Orders
Case title: Patel Inn and Travels Private Limited v/s Bank of India
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 15335 of 2025
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 105
The Gujarat High Court recently expressed its disapproval with trial court in not pronouncing judgment in a suit despite parties completing their submissions, adjourning the matter on succssive dates for "further arguments".
This the court said was "judicial dishonesty" on the part of the trial court in not pronouncing the verdict. The high court further warned the trial court not to keep matters pending for pronouncement of judgment beyond reasonable period after completion of submissions.
Case title: ArvindSingh GangaSingh Solanki v/s State of Gujarat & Batch
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 412 of 2005 and connected appeals
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 106
The Gujarat High Court overturned a trial court order which had convicted four men for "preparing to commit dacoity" after noting that the prosecution had failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.
In doing so the court also noted that trial court had failed to appreciate the legal requirement of five or more persons to commit the offence. It also said that prosecution's case cannot be believed since the information received had not been recorded in the police station diary nor was it recorded in the personal diary of any of the police witnesses.
Further the information alleged to have been provided by the informant had not been verified to know whether the informant was harbouring any enmity against the accused, who as proved by the Investigating Officer, were all in the profession as diamond cutters.
Case title: X v/s State of Gujarat & Anr.
R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (FOR REGULAR BAIL) NO. 126 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 107
The Gujarat High Court granted regular bail to a teenage boy booked for stabbing his schoolmate last year, after taking note of probation officer's report which stated that the boy had been "continuously bullied" by the deceased.
Noting that the petitioner is a school going child and the trial will take its own time to conclude the court granted bail to the petitioner, with the condition that the father will take care of his child for his good behaviour and his well being.
The petitioner, aged about 14 years and 9 months at the time of the alleged act, was arrested on 22.08.2025 for offences under Sections 109(1) (attempt to murder) and 103(1) (murder) BNS and section 135(1) of the G.P. Act. It was alleged that the petitioner had given a fatal blow to the deceased child with a knife, opposite their school on a public road. The chargesheet stated that the petitioner was "harbouring the previous enmity" against the deceased.
Case title: Yusufbhai Jivanbhai Patel @ Mahendrabhai Jivabhai Vasava & Ors. v/s State of Gujarat
R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (AGAINST ORDER PASSED BY SUBORDINATE COURT) NO. 2 of 2025
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 108
The Gujarat High Court refused to interfere with a trial court order which had declined to discharge five men booked in 2021 in an alleged case of forced religious conversion in Bharuch, remarking that it cannot in revisional jurisdiction conduct a mini trial and can only find out if a prima facie case is made out.
The five petitioners had moved the high court challenging a trial court order which had refused to discharge them in a case lodged under Section 4 (punishment for forcible conversion) of the Gujarat Freedom of Religion Act, 2003 read with IPC Sections 120(B)(criminal conspiracy), 153B(1)(c) (Imputations, assertions prejudicial to national-integration) and 506(2)(criminal intimidation).
Case title: Jayesh Batukhai Patel (Vanani) v/s State of Gujarat & Ors.
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5056 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 109
The Gujarat High Court on Monday (April 6) directed the authorities to include the name of a man in the electoral roll of the concerned legislative assembly constituency, after noting that despite an earlier order directing his inclusion the petitioner's name had been left out by the electoral officer.
In doing so the court said that the earlier order by the concerned officer who had accepted the petitioner's plea for inclusion was passed prior to publication of preliminary roll, and in view of the fact that final list was scheduled for publication on April 10 the petitioner cannot be denied the right to participate in the polls due to a technicality.
The petitioner had challenged an endorsement dated 4.4.2026 by which the Electoral Officer has refused to include his name in the electoral roll.
Case title: Jitendrakumar Ambalal Kondi v/s State of Gujarat & Ors.
R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (FOR MAINTENANCE) NO. 624 of 2014
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 110
The Gujarat High Court upheld an order directing a husband to undergo imprisonment of 660 days for failing to pay maintenance to his wife and children, after noting that the husband had himself surrendered before the court stating that he was unable to pay the maintenance amount.
In doing so the court said that it is the husband's legal and ethical duty to maintain his wife and provide financial support to her and their children and he cannot shirk this responsibility.
The husband had moved the high court challenging Family Court's order directing the husband to undergo simple imprisonment for 660 days for failing to pay maintenance to his wife.
Case title: X v/s State of Gujarat
R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (FOR REGULAR BAIL) NO. 1400 of 2025
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 111
The Gujarat High Court granted bail to a child-in-conflict with law booked along with other CCLs for murder of another minor boy, after noting that the Juvenile Justice Board as well as the appellate court/children's court did not give reasons for rejecting the bail plea.
It further noted that both the JJB and the appellate court had dealt with the CCL's bail plea not as one under section 12 of Juvenile Justice Act but as one under CrPC.
Justice Gita Gopi in her order said:
"The JJB as well as the learned Appellate Court was required to give the reasons explaining as to how the release of the CCL would be detrimental to the ends of justice. Even without calling for the Report of the Probation Officer and the Report of the Clinical Psychologist, the bail application of the present CCL, aged about 14 years has been dealt with. Both the Courts, i.e. learned JJB as well as the learned Appellate Court has dealt with the application for bail of the present CCL as if they were dealing with of a heinous crime committed by an adult".
Case title: Harpreet Singh Talwar @ Kabir Talwar v/s State of Gujarat & Anr.
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL (REGULAR BAIL - AFTER CHARGESHEET) NO. 15 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 112
The Gujarat High Court granted bail to a man booked in a case over seizure of 2,988 kg heroin consignment in Mundra port in 2021, observing that despite timeline to conduct the trial given by the Supreme Court the prosecution agency NIA could not ensure deposition of all witnesses relevant to the accused.
This, the court said, established that there had been an "inordinate delay" in the conduct of the trial despite orders passed by the Supreme Court.
A division bench of Justice NS Sanjay Gowda and Justice DM Vyas in its order said that when the appellant had approached the Supreme Court for bail, on 25.9.2024 the apex court while noting that charges were yet to be framed had thought it fit to issue directions to ensure examination of all witnesses who were relevant as against the appellant.
Case title: Varsha Mukhesbhai Katara v/s State of Election Commission through Secretary & Ors.
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5261 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 113
The Gujarat High Court has said that State Election Commission does not exercise any independent right over inclusion or deletion of names from its electoral rolls, and it only is empowered to replicate the electoral roll of the Assembly constituency
In doing so, it granted relief to a woman whose request for inclusion in the roll to participate in the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation elections was earlier denied despite acceptance of her inclusion application, on the ground that her application was allowed after publication of the preliminary list.
Merely Possessing An LLB Degree No Ground To Refuse Maintenance To Divorced Wife: Gujarat High Court
Case title: Dhruti Vinubhai Dodiya v/s State of Gujarat & Anr.
R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (FOR MAINTENANCE) NO. 616 of 2022 and connected petitions
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 114
The Gujarat High Court recently observed that merely because a divorced wife possesses an LL.B degree, the same cannot be a ground to refuse her maintenance.
A bench of Justice Hasmukh D Suthar made this observation while upholding a Family Court order directing a husband to pay Rs 10,000 per month to his divorced wife.
The bench, however, dismissed the wife's revision application seeking enhancement of the maintenance amount from Rs. 10,000/- per month to 25,000/- per month.
Case title: Sanjaybhai Mangalbhai Gadhavi v/s State Election Commission & Ors.
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5134 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 115
The Gujarat High Court directed the State Election Commission to include a man's name in the electoral roll enabling him to vote in the upcoming Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation Elections, noting that his application form for inclusion in the State Assembly List consisted of a "digital signature acknowledging the filing of the form".
The court was hearing a man's petition seeking a direction to the authorities to include his name in the Electoral Roll of Ward No.44 of Khokhara and permit him to participate in the electoral process in the upcoming elections of the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation.
Case title: Joshi Umang Vijaykumar v/s Union of India & Ors.
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4534 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 116
The Gujarat High Court dismissed a man's plea against alleged in-built flaws in the procedure for availing scribe facility for the UPSC Civil Services Exam, after noting that the petitioner had continued to appear in the exam, exhausted the maximum number of attempts and after being unsuccessful in all of them, could not question the procedure any longer.
The petitioner, who appeared in person, had availed the maximum number of attempts– 9 in number, for appearing in the UPSC Civil Services Examination. He filed a plea questioning the procedure for appearing in the UPSC examination by physically disabled candidates who would be availing the services of a 'Scribe'.
Case title: Manishkumar Shivlal Chuahan v/s State of Gujarat
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR SUCCESSIVE REGULAR BAIL-AFTER CHARGESHEET) NO. 3576 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 117
The Gujarat High Court denied bail to a college professor accused of sexually harassing, sending inappropriate messages on WhatsApp and making inappropriate sexual demands from his student.
Justice Nikhil S Kariel in his order referred to documents on record as well as the charge-sheet papers including the statement of the victim under Section 183 of the BNSS and said that the court was not inclined to grant bail for the following reasons:
i. The offence was very serious inasmuch as, the petitioner, a professor in a college is alleged to have sought "sexual favours from the victim".
ii. The allegations "prima facie" finds support in the charge-sheet papers, particularly wherein the court had perused a document in the nature of an apology letter by the petitioner a day before his arrest i.e. on 25.11.2025 addressed to the principal of the college. In this letter, the court noted, the petitioner had sought for an "apology for his inappropriate behaviour and also the inappropriate chats with the students including the present victim".
Case title: State of Gujarat v/s Baldevbhai Budhaji Dhulaji Chauhan (Thakor)
R/CRIMINAL CONFIRMATION CASE NO. 2 of 2024, R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2812 of 2024
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 118
The Gujarat High Court set aside death penalty awarded to a man convicted in a double-murder case, after observing that the prosecution had failed to prove the circumstances with "clinching evidence" and the trial court had delivered a guilty verdict based on surmises and conjectures disregarding law.
The accused was convicted by the trial court for the murder of a woman's husband and her mother-in-law, whom the prosecution alleged had an affair with the accused.
Case title: H I Majamudar Intelligence Officer v/s Santosh Pandurang Shetty & Ors.
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1311 of 1999
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 119
The Gujarat High Court upheld trial court's 1999 order acquitting three persons in an NDPS case, remarking that despite alleged involvement of commercial quantity of drugs the prosecution's case was so utterly flawed that it raised serious doubt on the nature of investigation conducted.
In doing so the court said that neither the owner of the premises from where the contraband was allegedly recovered was not examined nor was the person who took the place on rent added as an accused. This, seemed to indicate either an utter lack of competence of the prosecution team or a deliberate attempt to protect the real accused persons.
Case title: Employees State Insurance Corporation v/s Sudhaben Ramanbhai Patel & Ors.
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 656 of 2011
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 120
Quashing a compensation order in favour of the kin of a mechanic who died of a heart attack at work, the Gujarat High Court said that heart attack may not automatically amount to an employment injury under ESI Act unless nexus is proved between the employee's death and the injury which must arise "out of and during" the course of employment.
Referring to Section 2(8) Employees' State Insurance Act, Justice JC Doshi in his order noted that an "employment injury" is a personal injury caused to an employee either caused by an "accident or an occupational disease" arising out of and in the course of the employment.
Case title: Siddhant @ Samadhan Kevalrao Jagtap v/s State of Gujarat
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR REGULAR BAIL - AFTER CHARGESHEET) NO. 5161 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 121
The Gujarat High Court denied bail to a man booked in a child-kidnapping and trafficking case, who was accused of promising the abductors of selling the child for Rs. 1,50,000 and had also facilitated the travel of the abductors along with the child to Aurangabad.
In doing so the court found that the "role" of the petitioner in the offence was "prima facie very clear".
The petitioner was seeking bail in an FIR registered under Sections 137(2)(kidnapping), 143(4)(Trafficking of person), 61(2) (criminal conspiracy) BNS and provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act.
Case title: Deep Jayesgbhai Indravadan Soni v/s State of Gujarat
R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (QUASHING) NO. 4123 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 122
The Gujarat High Court upheld a trial court order which dismissed a rape accused's objection to a question posed by the prosecution to the victim during trial, claiming it was a leading question.
In doing so the court found that the question was not a leading question after noting that the victim's answer could have been anything. It further agreed with the State's submission that the accused's plea was nothing but a "tactic to delay the trial".
The petitioner–accused of rape–had challenged a trial court order rejecting his objection raised to a question posed by the public prosecutor to the victim during her examination-in-chief, which the accused claim was a leading question.
Case title: Sadhu Falguni Miteshkumar v/s State of Gujarat
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL) NO. 5522 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 123
The Gujarat High Court refused to grant anticipatory bail to a woman law student–presently in the third year of LL.B. course, who was booked for posing as an advocate in a case containing allegations of swindling Rs.80,00,000 by various accused persons.
The State had alleged that not only was an identity card issued by Bar Council of Gujarat in her name was recovered, a name plate presenting the accused as an advocate of the Supreme Court of India, seals of various police stations, case register, seals which were used by notary and notarial register, calendar reflecting the petitioner's name as advocate were found during the probe.
The State claimed that statement of various persons who had come forward after lodging of the FIR was also recorded, and presently "Rs.80,00,000 is siphoned by the present applicant and other accused named in FIR".
Case title: Stevan Bhanubhai Macwan & Anr. v/s State of Gujarat
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR SUCCESSIVE REGULAR BAIL - AFTER CHARGESHEET) NO. 512 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 124
The Gujarat High Court granted bail to a man accused of inducing the complainant to convert to his religion, after "prima facie" noting that mandate of prior sanction to initiate prosecution under the Gujarat Freedom of Religion Act had not been followed.
For context, Section 6 of the Act states that "no prosecution for an offence under this Act shall be instituted except by or with the previous sanction of the District Magistrate or such other authority not below the rank of a Sub-Divisional Magistrate as may be authorised by him in that behalf".
The court was hearing the accused's bail plea booked for offences under Sections 4(1) (which penalizes forced religious conversion as provided under Section 3 with imprisonment which may extend to 3 years and fine which may extend to Rs. 50,000) and 4(2) of Gujarat Freedom of Religion Act.
Case title: Premjibhai Hirabhai Gohil v/s State of Gujarat
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 725 of 2011
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 125
The Gujarat High Court upheld a trial court order convicting a judicial officer in a disproportionate assets case, after noting the officer could not prove that his wife was legally entitled to receive a gift from a person who was not his wife's blood relation or family member.
It was alleged that the appellant while serving as Civil Judge (J.D.) and Judicial Magistrate, First Class at Pardi, Valsad between 10.06.2002 to 01.10.2002, in abetment with accused No.2–his brother-in-law and accused No.3–his wife, while serving as a public servant had abused this position and illegally demanded and accepted bribe from prosecution witnesses.
Case title: GEB v/s Nirmal Rajendra Madela ,WD/O Rajendra Sitaram Mandela & Ors.
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1406 of 2002
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 126
The Gujarat High Court upheld a trial court order granting compensation of Rs. 3 Lakh to the family of a man who was electrocuted while assisting his brother in repairing a television antenna on the terrace of a flat, after the antenna came into contact with an electric wire above it.
In doing so the court applied the principle of strict and absolute liability and directed the trial court to disburse the compensation to the claimants.
On October 30,1988 brothers Nitin Sitaram and Rajendra Sitaram lost their lives after being electrocuted on the terrace of a flat, wherein Nitin was repairing the television antenna on the terrace and Rajendra was assisting him.
Case title: X v/s Y & Anr.
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3285 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 127
The Gujarat High Court upheld a report by a cooperative society's Internal Complaints Committee which had rejected a woman employee's sexual harassment complaint against two officials–including a woman, as false and baseless.
In doing so the court found that the ICC was unbiased and had complied with the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act. It further warned against operation of "reverse bias" against the male accused in such cases, which if extended by adjudicating forums might be counterproductive as it may create more glass ceilings thereby creating fetters in employment of genuine employees.
Case title: Sant Shri Asharam Ashram through Trustee and Authorized Signatory Rajeshkumar Shadilal Bharti v/s State of Gujarat & Ors.
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 107 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 128
The Gujarat High Court dismissed pleas moved by 'Sant Shri Asharam Ashram' challenging revenue and eviction proceedings, for encroaching upon a large area of land and after finding that the trust had violated allotment conditions and regularization orders.
Upholding the findings of the single judge, a division bench of Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice DN Ray in its order said:
"Considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, it is evident that the petitioner – trust not only violated the conditions of the orders of allotment / regularization orders of grant of Government land, but also encroached upon a substantial area of open land surrounding the allotted lands, even the land from the riverbed, for its use and illegal occupation over the period of years. The petitioner is found to be a habitual offender, who had earlier encroached on a large area of about 51,101 sq.mtrs of open land forming part of Sabarmati river, which was proved in the eviction proceedings conducted under Section 61 of the Code in the year 2009. Even otherwise, the allegations of breach of conditions of the allotment / regularization orders have been found to be proved by the learned Single Judge as well as by us in view of the discussion made hereinabove".
Case title: Namori Hajibhai Bukera v/s State of Gujarat
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL (AGAINST CONVICTION) NO. 2597 of 2022
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 129
The Gujarat High Court upheld trial court's murder conviction awarded to a man who had shot at the deceased with an unlicensed firearm, after noting that there was consistent evidence supporting that the shot was fired with intention and knowledge to cause death.
A division bench of Justice Ilesh J Vora and Justice RT Vachhani in its order said:
"The fact that the accused had no license for the firearm, gave no explanation for possessing it, and that the gunshot fired by him caused the death of the deceased is clearly proved. The time, place and motive of the incident are fully supported by consistent oral, medical, documentary and scientific evidence, as to the fact of the appellant-accused No.1 having fired the fatal shot with intention and knowledge, thereby committing murder under Section 302 of IPC and the offence under Section 25(1B) (a) of the Arms Act. The conviction and sentence against the said accused does not warrant any interference.
Case title: Reliance Industries Ltd & Anr. v/s State of Gujarat & Anr.
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5789 of 2006
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 130
The Gujarat High Court has set aside a 21-year-old water bill of Rs. 146.79 Lakh issued to Reliance Industries by the state government for arrears of water charges between 1997-2005, noting that the same was based on a government resolution which was not acted upon at the time and the transaction had been already concluded.
Justice Hemant M Prachchhak in his order noted that the transaction had concluded in June 2005 on payment of charges by the petitioner and had the petitioner been aware that it would have been charged more in accordance with the 2002 Government Resolution, it would have conducted itself differently.
Case title: Miskinbanu Jahidkhan Pathan & Ors. v/s Alisher Subhanali Ansari & Anr.
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2516 of 1999
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 131
The Gujarat High Court has reiterated that Specific Relief Act mandates that in a suit for specific performance, the onus lies on the plaintiff to prove "continuous readiness and willingness" to perform his part of the contract which the court may infer from facts and circumstances.
The court was hearing two appeals challenging a 1999 order of the civil court decreeing a suit in favour of the plaintiff. The civil court directed defendant no.1 to execute the sale-deed in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the suit property, on plaintiff paying remaining amount of sale consideration as per the agreement dated 01.10.1985 with interest @ 9% per annum.
Gujarat High Court Grants Bail To NDPS Accused In Custody Along With Her Child
Case title: Pravinbanu Ibrahim Sultan Mamrej Kureshi v/s State of Gujarat
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR REGULAR BAIL - AFTER CHARGESHEET) NO. 8187 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 132
The Gujarat High Court granted bail to an NDPS accused who was found in possession of a contraband, after noting that she had three minor children wherein one of them was presently with her in judicial custody.
Though the court "prima facie" noted that the offence was serious and her as the person in conscious possession of the contraband cannot be ignored, the court noted that she had no criminal antecedents, is a woman accused and the twin conditions for grant of bail under Section 37(1)(b)(ii) NDPS Act were fulfilled.
Case title: Dilipsinh @ Dako Kishorsinh Rathod & Ors. v/s State of Gujarat
R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (AGAINST ORDER PASSED BY SUBORDINATE COURT) NO. 135 of 2019
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 133
The Gujarat High Court has held that merely firing in air during a wedding function without any intention to cause injury to anyone is not enough to constitute charge of attempt to murder under Section 307 IPC.
In doing so the court quashed charge of attempt to murder against six persons who were booked for firing in the air during a wedding function, noting that there was no intention on the part of the accused to cause any injury to anyone and the surrounding circumstances in the case did not infer such intention.
Case title: Vasantbhai Premjibhai Vekariya v/s State of Gujarat & Anr.
R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (FOR MAINTENANCE) NO. 175 of 2022
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 134
The Gujarat High Court dismissed a man's appeal challenging family court order directing him to pay maintenance to his wife–under treatment for cancer, noting that closure of the husband's business or recession, in absence of any material, was not a ground to deny maintenance specially in view of the able-bodied principle.
In doing so, the court, referring to various judgments underscored that the law was clear wherein it was the duty of the husband to maintain his wife.
Case title: Seventh Day Adventist Higher Secondary School & Ors. State of Gujarat & Anr.
R/LPA/296/2026 IN R/SCA/836/2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 135
The Gujarat government told the High Court on Tuesday (April 28) that it will withdraw its December 15, 2025 order taking over the management of a private school in Ahmedabad following the stabbing of a Class 10 student by another in August last year, and take a fresh decision.
The court was hearing the school's appeal challenging a single judge's order which had refused to grant ad-interim relief to permit admission of new students in the school's writ petition.
Case title: X & Anr v/s NA
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5760 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 136
The Gujarat High Court permitted a husband to appear before the family court via video conference in proceedings for divorce by mutual, observing that the family court had adopted a hyper-technical approach over use of VC by the husband to appear in the matrimonial proceedings.
The court noted that the family court had issued 15 directions including appointment of a Court Commissioner to record assent of husband which was unknown procedure, adding that technology should serve as handmaiden to justice not a hurdle in the path and must be accessible to litigants.
Case title: Union of India v/s Mandabai w/o Sukhdev Chavan (Mother of Decd)
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 213 of 2024
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 137
The Gujarat High Court dismissed Railways appeal against an order awarding compensation to the mother of a deceased passenger who fell after receiving a jolt and lost his life, rejecting the Railways claim that the deceased might have committed suicide or fallen down due to his own negligence.
In doing so the court remarked that no sane person would attempt to de-board or alight from a running train.
The court was hearing Railways appeal challenging Railway Claims Tribunal's order awarding compensation of Rs.8 Lakhs with 9% interest to the kin of the deceased from the date of incident i.e. 17.04.2017 till date of realization.
Case title: Manojbhai Kachrabhai Vasoya v/s State of Gujarat & Anr.
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING & SET ASIDE FIR/ORDER) NO. 10969 of 2021
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 138
The Gujarat High Court quashed a rape FIR against a man, after noting that it was a case of 'honey trap' wherein the complainant had consensual relations with the accused and subsequently tried to extort money from him.
The FIR was registered under IPC Sections 376(1)(rape), 114(Abettor present when offence is committed), 506(1)(2) (criminal intimidation) IPC making accusations against four persons, wherein petitioner is named as accused no.1. Against the FIR the petitioner had approached the high court.