Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 170 - 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 176Nominal IndexMohammad Bilal Gulam Rasul Kagazi v/s State of Gujarat & Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 170Shahnawaz Sirajuddin Siddiqui v/s Marufa, 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 171Heirs of Mahant Dayaramdas- Bai Padma WD/o Dayaramdas (Deleted) & Ors. v/s Charity Commissioner & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 172Union of India v/s Meenadevi ...
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 170 - 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 176
Nominal Index
Mohammad Bilal Gulam Rasul Kagazi v/s State of Gujarat & Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 170
Shahnawaz Sirajuddin Siddiqui v/s Marufa, 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 171
Heirs of Mahant Dayaramdas- Bai Padma WD/o Dayaramdas (Deleted) & Ors. v/s Charity Commissioner & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 172
Union of India v/s Meenadevi W/O Hariprasad Gupta & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 173
Rahul Babulal Purohit & Anr. v/s State of Gujarat & Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 174
Rakeshkumar Ramanbhai Gohil v/s State of Gujarat & Anr.,2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 175
Mohammed Asgarali Mohammad Vajirali v/s State of Gujarat & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 176
Judgment/Orders
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".
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".
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.
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
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.