Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 144 - 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 150Nominal IndexAsim @ Munmun @ Asif Abdulkarim Solanki v/s State of Gujarat, 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 144Harishchandra R Pednekar (Deceased) Through Legal Heirs & Ors. v/s Bhaskar R Pednekar (Since Deceased Thru Legal Heirs) & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 145Union of India & Ors v/s Bhanuben w/o Manojbhai Dhirubhai Rathod, 2026...
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 144 - 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 150
Nominal Index
Asim @ Munmun @ Asif Abdulkarim Solanki v/s State of Gujarat, 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 144
Harishchandra R Pednekar (Deceased) Through Legal Heirs & Ors. v/s Bhaskar R Pednekar (Since Deceased Thru Legal Heirs) & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 145
Union of India & Ors v/s Bhanuben w/o Manojbhai Dhirubhai Rathod, 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 146
Vasudev Kantilal Mahesuriya & Ors. v/s Mohanlal Jethalal Purohit & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 147
Narayan @ Narayan Sai v/s State of Gujarat & Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 148
Aksharbhai Rameshbhai Baraiya & Ors. v/s State of Gujarat and batch, 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 149
Jayprakash Ghastelal v/s Union of India through General Manager, 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 150
X v/s Y & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 151
Judgments/Orders
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) 144
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) 145
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) 146
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) 147
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) 148
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) 149
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) 150
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) 151
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.