Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 157 - 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 162Nominal IndexAnilKumar Chimanlal Dixit & Ors. v/s State of Gujarat, 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 157Himanshu Parsottambhai Parmar v/s State of Gujarat, 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 158Upendra Kumar Jaypalsinh v/s State of Gujarat, 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 159Kunal Rameshbhai Kalyani v/s State of Gujarat & Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 160Ajay Jagdishbhai...
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 157 - 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 162
Nominal Index
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
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.