LiveLaw Gujarat High Court Weekly Round-Up: October 12 - October 18, 2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 280 - 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 287Nominal IndexRajeshbhai @ Valku Devchandbhai Jiyani & Ors. v/s State of Gujarat, 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 280Molana Mohammad Ramzan Janmohammad v/s State of Gujarat, 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 281Sanjay Harishbhai Acharya v/s State of Gujarat & Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 282Vishabhai @ Toofan Rameshbhai Thakor v/s State of Gujarat, 2026...
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 280 - 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 287
Nominal Index
Rajeshbhai @ Valku Devchandbhai Jiyani & Ors. v/s State of Gujarat, 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 280
Molana Mohammad Ramzan Janmohammad v/s State of Gujarat, 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 281
Sanjay Harishbhai Acharya v/s State of Gujarat & Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 282
Vishabhai @ Toofan Rameshbhai Thakor v/s State of Gujarat, 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 283
Mohammad Yusuf Mohammad Punjani v/s Gujarat State Waqf Board & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 284
Mehul Mansukhbhai Boghara v/s State of Gujarat & Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 285
Suo Motu v/s Deepak Khosla & Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 286
United India Insurance Company Limited v/s Chandrakant Vishandas Harwani & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 287
Judgments/Orders
Gujarat High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail To Woman Accused Of Facilitating, Recording Rape
Case Title : Rajeshbhai @ Valku Devchandbhai Jiyani & Ors. v/s State of Gujarat
Case Number : R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL) NO. 4350 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 280
The Gujarat High Court denied anticipatory bail to three including a woman over allegations of rape, molestation, physical assault as well as recording the alleged incident on a mobile phone and threatening the victim with the same. [2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 280]
Accused no. 1 was accused of rape, molestation and physical assault; accused No.2, a woman was accused of restraining the victim, recording the incident and threatening her thereafter; accused no. 3 was accused of demanding physical relations from the victim and threatening her after she refused the same.
Case Title : Molana Mohammad Ramzan Janmohammad v/s State of Gujarat
Case Number : R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR REGULAR BAIL - AFTER CHARGESHEET) NO. 20655 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 281
The Gujarat High Court granted bail to a Muslim cleric who was accused of religious conversion and solemnizing a minor's marriage without verifying proof of age. [2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 281]
The accused was booked under Sections 64(2)(i), 64(2)(m), 137(2), 87, 115(2), 351(3) of BNS; Sections 4, 6, 17, 18 of the POCSO Act, Sections 9 & 10 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act and Section 4A of the Gujarat Freedom of Religion Act.
Case Title : Sanjay Harishbhai Acharya v/s State of Gujarat & Anr.
Case Number : R/CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING & SET ASIDE FIR/ORDER) NO. 8681 of 2016
CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 282
The Gujarat High Court quashed an FIR against a man accused of outraging a woman's modesty after observing that FIR was premised on a "staged confrontation" wherein the husband had found the accused with his wife after an "unexpected encounter" which lacked judicial creditworthiness.[2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 282]
The court thus said that pushing the accused through the "rigmarole of a full trial would be abuse of process of law".
Gujarat High Court Grants Bail To Man Accused Of Attempting To Break Open ATM Machine
Case Title : Vishabhai @ Toofan Rameshbhai Thakor v/s State of Gujarat
Case Number : R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR SUCCESSIVE REGULAR BAIL - AFTER CHARGESHEET) NO. 22874 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 283
The Gujarat High Court granted bail to a man accused of trying to break open an ATM machine along with co-accused, with the intention of committing theft. [2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 283]
The petitioner had sought bail for FIR lodged under Sections 331(4)(Lurking house-trespass or house-breaking by night), 305(a)(Theft in a dwelling house), 324(4)(Mischief causing property damage), 54(Abettor present when the offence is committed), 61(2)(a)(criminal conspiracy), 238(c)(Causing disappearance of evidence or giving false information) BNS.
Waqf Tribunal Can't Exercise Supervisory Powers Over Waqf Board: Gujarat High Court
Case Title : Mohammad Yusuf Mohammad Punjani v/s Gujarat State Waqf Board & Ors.
Case Number : R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 3494 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 284
The Gujarat High Court has held that State Waqf Tribunal's powers are adjudicatory in nature and thus it cannot exercise supervisory powers over the State Waqf Board concerning the management of a Waqf trust. [2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 284]
The court was hearing the Muttawali (manager) of Junagadh Suryawad Memon Jamat, a Trust, who had challenged an order of the Gujarat State Waqf Tribunal issuing directions for taking possession of the books of accounts, records, movable and immovable properties of the Waqf.
Case Title : Mehul Mansukhbhai Boghara v/s State of Gujarat & Anr.
Case Number : R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING & SET ASIDE FIR/ORDER) NO. 15570 of 2022
CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 285
The Gujarat High Court quashed an extortion FIR against a lawyer after noting that it was impossible to believe that the petitioner who was live-streaming on Facebook at the time of the alleged incident would also simultaneously extort money from traffic personnel at the exact moment. [2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 285]
The court said that the FIR against the petitioner was "counter blast" to the attempt to murder FIR lodged by the petitioner against the traffic personnel for assaulting the lawyer when confronted with allegations of corruption.
Case Title : Suo Motu v/s Deepak Khosla & Anr.
Case Number : R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR CONTEMPT OF COURT) NO. 2911 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 286
The Gujarat High Court closed a suo-motu criminal contempt case against a lawyer who had made assertions against two sitting high court judges, after taking note of his unconditional apology. [2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 286]
The lawyer had made certain assertions in his application that he had filed for initiation of contempt in another matter. The assertions were directed against two Sitting Judges of the High Court.
Case Title : United India Insurance Company Limited v/s Chandrakant Vishandas Harwani & Ors.
Case Number : R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 602 of 2013 With R/CROSS OBJECTION NO. 85 of 2013 In R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 602 of 2013
CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 287
The Gujarat High Court has held that an insurer is liable to compensate the owner of goods travelling in goods carriage for injuries caused due to accident, as statutory rules permit the owner or hirer of goods to travel in a goods vehicle free of charge and such an individual does not qualify as a “gratuitous passenger.” [2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 287]
A Division Bench of Justice N.S. Sanjay Gowda and Justice J.L. Odedra dismissed the appeal filed by United India Insurance Company Limited, and partly allowed the claimant's cross-objection. The Bench enhanced the compensation granted to the claimant from Rs. 13,06,000 to Rs. 18,80,400.