Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 114 - 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 124Nominal IndexDhruti Vinubhai Dodiya v/s State of Gujarat & Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 114Sanjaybhai Mangalbhai Gadhavi v/s State Election Commission & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 115Joshi Umang Vijaykumar v/s Union of India & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 116 Manishkumar Shivlal Chuahan v/s State of Gujarat, 2026 LiveLaw (Guj)...
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 114 - 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 124
Nominal Index
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
Judgments/Orders
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.