LiveLaw Gujarat High Court Weekly Round-Up: October 5 - October 11, 2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 271 - 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 279Nominal IndexPravinsinh Vajesing Parmar v/s State of Gujarat, 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 271Vinodchandra Chandrakant Thaker & Anr. v/s Kiritkumar Parshottam Dhokai, 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 272Suman Bishnoi v/s State of Gujarat & Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 273State of Gujarat v/s Hemitben Ishwarji Thakor & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Guj)...
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 271 - 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 279
Nominal Index
Pravinsinh Vajesing Parmar v/s State of Gujarat, 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 271
Vinodchandra Chandrakant Thaker & Anr. v/s Kiritkumar Parshottam Dhokai, 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 272
Suman Bishnoi v/s State of Gujarat & Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 273
State of Gujarat v/s Hemitben Ishwarji Thakor & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 274
Bharatbhai Hirjibhai Shankar v/s State of Gujarat & Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 275
Paragji Bharatji Detroja v/s State of Gujarat & Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 276
X v/s State of Gujarat, 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 277
Asha Harishchandra Dave v/s State of Gujarat & Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 278
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v/s Pankajkumar Mahednrasinh Beravat & Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 279
Judgments/Orders
Case Title : Pravinsinh Vajesing Parmar v/s State of Gujarat
Case Number : R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 164 of 2013 With R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1080 of 2013
CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 271
The Gujarat High Court acquitted two men who were convicted in 2012 by a trial court for murder, observing that this was a case of sudden fight and no pre-meditation on behalf of the accused had been proved by the prosecution. [2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 271]
The two men were accused of assaulting the deceased, the complainant's younger brother, after a verbal argument erupted between women family members of the accused and complainant. The deceased succumbed to his injuries by the accused who were allegedly weilding a sickle, sword and an iron strip.
Non-Consensus Between Parties Can't Justify 7-Year Delay In Filing Appeal: Gujarat High Court
Case Title : Vinodchandra Chandrakant Thaker & Anr. v/s Kiritkumar Parshottam Dhokai
Case Number : R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 14619 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 272
The Gujarat High Court refused to condone delay of over 7 years in filing an appeal against a trial court order concerning a civil suit, observing that non-consensus between petitioners over filing of appeal as well as Covid-19 pandemic were not sufficient causes to condone delay. [2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 272]
The court was hearing a plea challenging an appellate court order which had dismissed the petitioners appeal noting that it had been filed with an inordinate delay of over seven years.
Case Title : Suman Bishnoi v/s State of Gujarat & Anr.
Case Number : R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (DIRECTION) NO. 9593 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 273
The Gujarat High Court has directed registration of an FIR "against an unknown person" and investigation by Deputy Inspector General of Police, CID Crime, into the alleged custodial death of Indian Trade Service officer who allegedly died in CBI custody in connection with an illegal gratification case. [2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 273]
The deceased's wife had approached the high court claiming that despite disclosure of cognizable offence the police was not registering an FIR and were treating the case as an accidental death. The petitioner claimed that her husband Jawri Mal Bishnoi, Joint Director General of Foreign Trade, was an officer serving in the Indian Trade Service and had died in the custody of the CBI officers in connection with a corruption case.
Case Title : State of Gujarat v/s Hemitben Ishwarji Thakor & Ors.
Case Number : R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1958 of 2012
CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 274
The Gujarat High Court upheld the acquittal of three persons accused of using caste-based slurs and assaulting the complainant, observing that the eyewitness did not support the prosecution case in proving that the alleged derogatory words were used with an intent to insult in public. [2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 274]
It was alleged that the accused persons knew that the complainant belonged to the Scheduled Caste–Chamar Community and thus knowingly used caste-based slur against the complainant in public thereby committing offence punishable under Section 3(1)(10) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. It was also alleged that the accused had assaulted the complainant with sticks. The trial court had acquitted the accused persons, against which State moved the high court.
Case Title : Bharatbhai Hirjibhai Shankar v/s State of Gujarat & Anr.
Case Number : R/CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING & SET ASIDE FIR/ORDER) NO. 854 of 2018
CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 275
The Gujarat High Court has held that mere printing or selling of saree, textile materials containing artistic depictions of a deity or revered icon, even if appearing on lower border/Pallu of the garment, cannot automatically be presumed to be an act driven by deliberate malice or calculated to disrupt public order and outrage religious feelings. [2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 275]
The court was hearing a saree trader's plea booked under Sections 295A (Deliberate and malicious acts, intended to outrage religious feelings of any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs) r/w. 114 IPC, for allegedly outraging religious sentiments by selling Sarees, garments having printed impressions of Lord Gautam Buddha situated at the lower portion/pallu of the Saree, garment.
Case Title : Paragji Bharatji Detroja v/s State of Gujarat & Anr.
Case Number : R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING & SET ASIDE FIR/ORDER) NO. 23843 of 2017
CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 276
The Gujarat High Court quashed a kidnapping and POCSO case against a man after noting that this was a case of "adolescent love" wherein the girl was in relationship with the accused and had voluntarily left her parents home as her father was pressuring her to marry someone else. [2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 276]
The court was hearing a man's plea seeking quashing of an FIR under Sections 363 (Punishment for Kidnapping) and 366 (Compelling Marriage or Illicit Intercourse) of the IPC and Section 18(Punishment for Attempt to Commit an Offence) POCSO Act.
Case Title : X v/s State of Gujarat
Case Number : R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (QUASHING) NO. 14275 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 277
The Gujarat High Court has refused to permit a man to examine his minor son in order prove his wife's alleged adultery, observing that the child cannot be used as a pawn to show that the mother was living in adultery as it is always open for the husband to prove it through other evidence.
The court was hearing the father's plea who had sought summoning of his minor son as a witness to testify in his case and prove the adultery of the petitioner's wife. The father claimed that his son was the eyewitness to the illicit relation between the petitioner's wife and the minor's mother with another man.
Case Title : Asha Harishchandra Dave v/s State of Gujarat & Anr.
Case Number : R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 16429 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 278
The Gujarat High Court has held that a judicial officer cannot call upon the Chief Justice to transfer a sitting high court judge or threaten Principal District Judge to sleep on the pavement if a suitable accommodation was not provided, and that such conduct amounts to misconduct liable for dismissal from service.
In doing so the court upheld a 2023 decision terminating a judicial officer from service pursuant to recommendation of the Standing Committee which was placed before the Full Court of the High Court which had on 21.12.2023, resolved to accept the recommendation and decided to impose the punishment of Standing Committee and place the matter before the Government.
Case Title : United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v/s Pankajkumar Mahednrasinh Beravat & Anr.
Case Number : R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2637 of 2025 With CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2025 In R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2637 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 279
The Gujarat High Court observed that the statutory right of appeal, though valuable, cannot be used to re-agitate issues already settled by binding precedents and in a manner that results in abuse of the process of law and aggravates victim's hardship.
While dismissing an insurance company's appeal against a motor accident award, the High Court further held that Income Tax Returns (ITRs), being statutory documents, constitute an important reference point for assessing the income of the victim to calculate the compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and the same cannot be lightly brushed aside as “fabricated” in absence of any cogent evidence.