Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 1 To 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 38NOMINAL INDEXDev Narayan Gurjar v State of Rajasthan & Anr.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 1The State of Rajasthan v Smt. Manju Berwa & Anr.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 2Khurshid v State of Rajasthan; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 3Kailash Ram v State of Rajasthan & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 4Gangeshwar Lal Shrivastava & Anr. v State of Rajasthan, and...
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 1 To 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 38
NOMINAL INDEX
Dev Narayan Gurjar v State of Rajasthan & Anr.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 1
The State of Rajasthan v Smt. Manju Berwa & Anr.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 2
Khurshid v State of Rajasthan; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 3
Kailash Ram v State of Rajasthan & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 4
Gangeshwar Lal Shrivastava & Anr. v State of Rajasthan, and other connected petition; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 5
Us@us v State of Rajasthan; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 6
Pooranmal Yadav v State of Rajasthan; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 7
Khartaram v State of Rajasthan & Anr.; 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 8
Manoj v State of Rajasthan & Anr.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 9
Anil Kumar Meena & Anr. v State of Rajasthan & Ors, and other connected petitions; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 10
Hargovind Meena v Secretary, School Education Department, Rajasthan & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 11
Sumitra Runla v State of Rajasthan & Ors, and other connected petitions; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 12
Shobha v State of Rajasthan & Ors, and other connected petitions; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 13
Dinesh & Ors. v State of Rajasthan; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 14
Mohan Singh v State of Rajasthan & Anr, and other connected petitions; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 15
Satya Narain v the Judge, Central Industrial Tribunal & Anr.; 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 16
Satu Lal v State of Rajasthan & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 17
Jayendra Singh Sishodia v Rajasthan Housing Board, and other connected petitions; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 18
Dr. Smt. Hemlata Tetwal v State of Rajasthan & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 19
Javari v State of Rajasthan; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 20
Rukmani Birla Modern High School v State of Rajasthan & Ors, and other connected petitions; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 21
In RE: Protection and Preservation of the Historic Sites of Haldighati and Rakht Talai, District Udaipur; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 22
Smt. Rashidan & Anr. v Smt. Noorjahan & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 23
Ram Pyari Suman v the State of Rajasthan & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 24
Babu Lal & Anr. v the State of Rajasthan, and other connected petition; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 25
Rajesh Kumar Tiwari v the Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 26
Rohit Godara v State of Rajasthan & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 27
Gopal Sharma v State of Rajasthan & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 28
Radhakishan & Anr. v State of Rajasthan & Anr.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 29
Ayasha Chouhan v Waseem Khan; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 30
Devendra Kumar Kothari v State of Rajasthan; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 31
Peoples Watch Rajasthan v State of Rajasthan & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 32
Vatsal Bindal v State of Rajasthan & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 33
Vilayati Ram v the State of Rajasthan & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 34
Rajesh Kushwah v State of Rajasthan; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 35
Kesar Devi v Guddi Devi & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 36
Amit Rathor v State of Rajasthan & Anr.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 37
Union of India & Ors. v the Gujrat State Fertilizer and Chemical Limited; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 38
Order/Judgments of the Month
Title: Dev Narayan Gurjar v State of Rajasthan & Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 1
The Rajasthan High Court recently quashed the criminal proceedings against a young petitioner, initiated by the police under Section 211 IPC for filing false case, opining that such proceeding could be initiated only upon a written complaint by the Court in relation to which the offence was committed.
Section 211, IPC deals with the office of initiating false criminal proceedings and falsely charging a person with an offence.
The Court perused Section 195(1)(b), CrPC, and opined that if an offence was alleged to have been committed in, or in relation to any proceeding in any Court, cognizance could not be taken unless a written complaint was filed by that Court.
Hence, it was clear that prosecution under Section 211, IPC, was possible only after such written complaint was made by the Court concerned.
Title: The State of Rajasthan v Smt. Manju Berwa & Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 2
The Rajasthan High Court upheld an order directing reinstatement of a woman government employee who was terminated in 2002 following her arrest in relation to a cheating FIR in which she was eventually acquitted.
The division bench of Dr. Justice Pushpendra Singh Bhati and Justice Anuroop Singhi was hearing a special appeal filed by the State challenging order of a single judge bench that upheld the Labour Court's decision in which the State was directed to reinstate the woman (respondent).
"Upon perusal of the record and consideration of the factual matrix of the case, this Court finds no reason to take a view different from that of the learned Labour Court and the learned Single Judge. The very foundation of the termination order dated 17.10.2002 rested upon the pendency of a criminal case against respondent No.1. Once the respondent stood acquitted by a competent criminal court vide judgment dated 03.12.2011, the basis of such termination ceased to exist," the bench added.
Title: Khurshid v State of Rajasthan
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 3
The Rajasthan High Court has held that the registered owner of a vehicle, seized in relation to an NDPS case, is not entitled to get interim custody of the vehicle merely on the grounds of ownership if he/she himself/herself is one of the accused in the case.
The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand made a reference to the Supreme Court case of Bishwajit Dey v. State of Assam in which the Court gave certain scenarios where the vehicle seized in an NDPS case could or could not be released.
“The first two scenarios deal with the situations where supurdagi of such vehicles has not been permitted when the registered owner of the vehicle was found to be involved in commission of offences punishable under NDPS Act such as when the contraband/drugs have been recovered from the possession of the owner of the vehicle or his agent such as driver or cleaner of the vehicle.”
Third Party Has No Locus To Oppose Withdrawal Of Criminal Complaint: Rajasthan High Court
Title: Kailash Ram v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 4
The Rajasthan High Court recently rejected a petition challenging a trial court order that allowed withdrawal of a private complaint, opining that a third party who was neither the victim nor the complainant themselves, had no locus standi to revive the criminal proceedings.
The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand emphasized that if such practice is allowed in a casual manner, any “meddlesome bystander” could decide to attack any person by initiating a frivolous proceeding and hence, causing irretrievable injury to the life and liberty of accused person.
“In Criminal Law, the State and its instrumentalities enjoy prerogatives, akin to crown prerogatives in England. The power exercised by the Public Prosecutor under S.321 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is in the nature of such a prerogative. The State may advise him in this regard, but he must exercise his mind independently, and he ought not to act under dictation. If he acts honestly, his act cannot be questioned. The limited role of the court is only supervisory, and not adjudicatory or appellate in character…Every system must work on trust. The court even where it is required to act as a watchdog is not required to act like a hound.”
Title: Gangeshwar Lal Shrivastava & Anr. v State of Rajasthan, and other connected petition
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 5
The Rajasthan High Court rejected pleas filed by filmmaker Vikram Bhatt and other persons seeking quashing of a cheating FIR lodged against them, observing that the FIR at this stage "prima facie" disclosed allegations of siphoning, diverting and misappropriation of funds which cannot be treated as "mere breach of contract".
The matter related to a FIR being filed against the petitioners–Bhatt and other persons, in relation to a contract signed between them and the respondent-complainant for making four films for which a consideration of Rs. 42 Crores was paid to the petitioners.
Justice Sameer Jain observed that at this stage, the court cannot conclusively determine whether the dispute is purely one of breach of contract or constitutes the offence of criminal breach of trust.
Title: Us@us v State of Rajasthan
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 6
Rajasthan High Court held that bail is the rule for a child in conflict with law under the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 (“the Act”) even if the Juvenile was being tried as an “Adult Accused” before the Children's Court.
While setting aside orders that rejected bail application of the juvenile petitioner accused of murder, the bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand affirmed that the seriousness of the alleged offence or the age of juvenile were not relevant considerations for denial of bail under Section 12 of the Act.
“Even a child who is of the age of 16 years or above and is alleged to have committed a heinous offence is also entitled to get bail under Section 12 of the Act of 2015… Section 12 is applicable to all juveniles, in conflict with law, without any discrimination of any nature.”
The Could held that the JJ Boards/Court were expected to deal with such juveniles with sensibility and responsibility, keeping in mind the objective of the Act which was to reform and rehabilitate. And society would be ruined if such children were dealt with punitive approach.
Title: Pooranmal Yadav v State of Rajasthan
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 7
While underscoring the wide amplitude of powers available to Courts under Section 311 CrPC, the Rajasthan High Court has held that an accused cannot be denied the opportunity of cross-examination owing to the counsel's illness and resultant inability to attend the scheduled court date.
The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand was hearing a petition challenging the decision of the trial court that closed the opportunity of the petitioner for cross-examining the prosecution witnesses, and also rejected the application filed under Section 311 CrPC.
“It is, therefore, imperative that the invocation of Section 311 CrPC and its application in a particular case can be ordered by the court, only by bearing in mind the object and purport of the said provision, namely, for achieving a just decision of the case as noted by us earlier. The power vested under the said provision is made available to any court at any stage in any inquiry or trial or other proceeding initiated under the Code…”
Title: Khartaram v State of Rajasthan & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 8
The Rajasthan High Court has held that any insistence on sureties from an indigent prisoner as a precondition for being released on parole, who is unable to fulfil that condition, especially after repeated judicial interventions in the past that waived that requirement, is violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution and morally indefensible.
The division bench of Justice Arun Monga and Justice Farjand Ali held that the condition of furnishing personal bond and/or surety as delineated under Rule 4 of the Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole Rules, 2021 (“the Rules”) was directory and not mandatory or punitive in nature. And such discretion had to be exercised by the authorities in a positive manner to actualize the prisoner's release.
While underscoring the unconstitutionality in the actions of the State, the Court held that a prisoner did not cease to be a rights-bearing individual merely because he was incarcerated. And further, economic incapacity could not be a constitutionally valid basis for hostile discrimination against the haves and have-nots.
Title: Manoj v State of Rajasthan & Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 9
While dismissing an appeal against a rape conviction in a POCSO Case, the Rajasthan High Court held that the testimony of the victim herself, being the daughter of the convict, constituted the best possible evidence of the occurrence, since there was no reason for her to falsely implicate her own father.
The division bench of Justice Vinit Kumar Mathur and Justice Chandra Shekhar Sharma further opined that the delay in lodging the FIR was satisfactorily explained in light of social stigma, family circumstances, and gravity of allegations, and mere delay in such circumstances could not be a ground to discard the prosecution case.
The Court observed that sexual offences against children inflicted trauma that not only confined to physical injury but penetrated deeply into the psychological and emotional core of the victim, eroding trust, security and human dignity.
“Where the offender is the father—the very person entrusted as the child's natural protector—the offence transcends ordinary criminality and assumes an abhorrent and grotesque character.”
Title: Anil Kumar Meena & Anr. v State of Rajasthan & Ors, and other connected petitions
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 10
The Rajasthan High Court has dismissed a bunch of petitions challenging notification issued by the State Government under Section 3 read with Section 329 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act 2009 (“the Act”), wherein several villages and Gram Panchayat areas that fell under the Scheduled Areas, notified under Para 6(2) of the 5th Schedule, were included in municipal limits.
The division bench of Dr. Justice Pushpendra Singh Bhati and Justice Sanjeet Purohit held that such inclusion was not unconstitutional in absence of any exclusionary or modificatory notification by the Governor under Para 5(1) of the 5th schedule.
The Court held that the municipal inclusion of a Scheduled Area did not dilute or extinguish its constitutional status under Article 244 read with 5th Schedule, and all protection, obligations and supervisory mechanisms continued to operate in full force.
Title: Hargovind Meena v Secretary, School Education Department, Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 11
While staying transfer of a Government school principal, Rajasthan High Court held it to be arbitrary and damaging to the education as it was ordered in the middle of the academic session.
Justice Ashok Kumar Jain said that such mass transfers in September not only disrupted classes and students' continuity but also reflected the lack of administrative sensitivity towards the school systems.
While terming the transfer to be contrary to the principles of good governance, the bench held,
“It is not expected that the Government may transfer teachers on a mass scale in the mid of an educational session, which is going to conclude within another six months. Such action not only impacts the future of students, but also affects the aspirations of parents who cannot afford private or public school education for their children. Probably, this is one of the reasons why top Government officials or persons having sufficient means, admit their children to private schools.”
Title: Sumitra Runla v State of Rajasthan & Ors, and other connected petitions
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 12
While hearing a bunch of petitions by candidates for the post of Nursing officer, seeking their consideration under Outstanding Sports Person Category, Rajasthan High Court held that such claims had to be examined by the concerned State body in accordance with policy of State mentioned in the circular dated May 27, 2022 by the Department of Personnel (K-2).
The bench of Justice Ashok Kumar Jain held that the claims had to be examined in three counts: 1) Level of Participation; 2) Type of Event; 3) Performance, and laid down the following 5 steps for such examination.
Title: Shobha v State of Rajasthan & Ors, and other connected petitions
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 13
The Rajasthan High Court has struck down Rule 6 of the Rajasthan Contractual Hiring to Civil Posts Rules, 2022 (“2022 Rules”) as unconstitutional for being violative of Articles 14 & 16, as it prescribed 21 years as eligibility criteria for contractual recruitment to a post as compared to 18 years prescribed by Rajasthan Medical Health And Subordinate Service Rules, 1965 (“1965 Rules”) for regular recruitment to the same post.
The division bench of Dr. Justice Pushpendra Singh Bhati and Justice Anuroop Singhi highlighted that the educational qualifications, nature of work, scope of duties and responsibilities, required for the post under contractual and regular appointment were identical, and hence, the different eligibility criteria between the two modes of appointment were not based on any intelligible differentia.
“There exists no intelligible differentia which distinguishes the candidates who are grouped together by applying Rules of 1965 from those who have been grouped separately by applying Rules of 2022 so as to prescribe a different minimum age eligibility. It goes without saying that mere classification itself is not enough, for the simple reason that anything can be classified and every discriminatory action must of necessity fall in some category of classification. Therefore, classification has to be demonstrably based upon substantive differences and should achieve relevant objects that have constitutional validity.”
Title: Dinesh & Ors. v State of Rajasthan
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 14
Rajasthan High Court held that the bail granted by the IO to the accused deserved to be cancelled pursuant to the addition of graver and non-bailable offences during the course of investigation.
The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand upheld the decision of a Special Judge (Dacoity Affected Area) that cancelled the bail of the petitioner after the charge of a non-bailable offence (causing grievous hurt) was added to the charges against the petitioner based on re-examination of the injury report by a higher rank officer.
“It is the settled proposition of law that the benefit of bail granted by the Investigating Officer to the accused persons deserves to be cancelled on addition of graver and non-bailable offence during the course of investigation, hence under these circumstances, this Court finds no error in the impugned order passed by the Court below.”
Title: Mohan Singh v State of Rajasthan & Anr, and other connected petitions
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 15
Rajasthan High Court directed reinstatement of three constables, dismissed from service without conduct of regular enquiry under State Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, after two accused absconded from their custody charged with looting.
The bench of Justice Anand Sharma opined that merely the nature of offence committed by the absconded accused could not be a determining factor for exercising powers under Rule 19 of the Rules.
The Court observed that it was a settled position of law that even though the delinquent people may be accused of heinous misconduct, they had minimum right to face regular enquiry so that they could put forward their defence.
Title: Satya Narain v the Judge, Central Industrial Tribunal & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 16
The Rajasthan High Court has partly upheld the order of a Labour Court which directed monetary compensation to the petitioner, instead of reinstatement, despite ruling his termination to be in violation of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (“the Act”).
The bench of Justice Anand Sharma observed that even though a violation of Section 25F rendered the retrenchment illegal, the nature of the relief was not automatically reinstatement but dependent on the facts of each case.
Reference was made to the Supreme Court case of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. v. Bhurumal that opined that, “in cases involving daily wagers, ad hoc or contractual employees, particularly where the engagement was for a short duration and the dispute has been adjudicated after a long lapse of time, monetary compensation is a more appropriate and equitable relief than reinstatement. The Apex Court has cautioned against mechanical reinstatement which may disturb the administrative and financial equilibrium of the employer.”
Title: Satu Lal v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 17
The Rajasthan High Court directed regularization of the petitioner engaged by the State on a part-time basis, who continued uninterrupted services for several years and performed identical duties to that of regularly appointed employees, opining that not being appointed on a sanctioned post could not be a ground to deny benefit of regularization to the petitioner.
The bench of Justice Anand Sharma held that even though regularization could not be claimed as a matter of right, the constitutional principles did not permit the State to exploit labour by keeping them in a state of perpetual temporariness while extracting regular and continuous work.
Title: Jayendra Singh Sishodia v Rajasthan Housing Board, and other connected petitions
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 18
The Rajasthan High Court has held that once a bid is accepted at the auction venue, followed by immediate deposit of stipulated amount, the relationship between the State and the bidder progresses beyond mere offer, and a legitimate expectation coupled with the obligation of fairness arises in favour of the bidder.
The bench of Justice Farjand Ali thus set aside unilateral cancellation of an auction by the State without assigning any reasons to the accepted bidder, based on an internal file noting, and held that discretion vested in an authority did not elevate the office to the position of a monarch or a king.
Title: Dr. Smt. Hemlata Tetwal v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 19
The Rajasthan High Court has held that reinstatement of a government employee after consideration of his/her representation based on a court order was not equivalent to condonation of the misconduct, and it did not take away the State's right to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the employee for the same period.
The bench of Justice Anand Sharma clarified that unless a specific order was passed that condoned the misconduct, reinstatement by itself, following judicial order, did not preclude the State from conducting disciplinary enquiry.
“The penalty imposed does not shock the conscience of this Court, nor can it be termed outrageously disproportionate. It is well settled that mere harshness of punishment is not a ground for judicial interference. Unless the penalty is such that no reasonable employer would have imposed it in the given facts, the Court must refrain from substituting its own sense of proportionality.”
Title: Javari v State of Rajasthan
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 20
The Rajasthan High Court held that whether an auction bid was fair or competitive was not a post-facto subjective notion, rather an assessment founded on objective criteria, demonstrable from the auction proceedings themselves and recorded contemporaneously with clarity and specificity.
While setting aside unilateral and unreasoned cancellation of auction post acceptance of deposit by the State, the bench of Justice Farjand Ali held that mere invocation of power of cancellation without providing reasons or precise deficiency that vitiated the auction process, rendered the cancellation legally unsustainable.
Title: Rukmani Birla Modern High School v State of Rajasthan & Ors, and other connected petitions
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 21
Rajasthan High Court held that that the obligation to reserve 25% seats under the Right to Education Act, 2009 (“the Act”) was applicable not only to the Class I but also to all pre-primary levels wherever such education was offered.
The division bench of Acting Chief Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma and Justice Baljinder Singh Sandhu opined that by restricting the applicability to Class I, the purpose of the Act would be defeated since the students from weaker sections would be in a disadvantaged position as compared to other children who would have already studied in pre-primary classes.
“It is common knowledge that in schools which are unaided, admissions are not only given at Class-I level but are also given in the Montessori level, i.e., Pre Primary Schools. The students studying in those schools then get admitted in the same school at Class-I level…Thus, if a student coming from the marginalized and weaker section of the society is not allowed to be admitted at the Pre Primary level, he/she would not be able to compete and reach the same stage as those who are admitted with them at Class-I level.”
Title: In RE: Protection and Preservation of the Historic Sites of Haldighati and Rakht Talai, District Udaipur.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 22
While hearing a PIL based on suo moto cognizance of a news report highlighting the neglected and degraded condition of the historic sites of Haldighati Pass and the Rakht Talai, Rajasthan High Court held that such systemic failure on part of the Central and State governments constituted violation of Articles 21, 49 and 51A(g) of the Constitution.
The division bench of Dr. Justice Pushpendra Singh Bhati and Justice Sanjeet Purohit issued notices to the Central and State Governments with a direction to file affidavits detailing the steps taken for preservation of the sites, and measures to address encroachments, pollution and restoration.
Title: Smt. Rashidan & Anr. v Smt. Noorjahan & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 23
The Rajasthan High Court has held that a litigant cannot be made to suffer for an inadvertent mistake on part of his/her counsel in noting the next date of hearing of case, and thus quashed the trial court order that rejected petitioner's restoration application on technical grounds of delay in an eviction suit that was dismissed in default.
While directing restoration of the matter, the bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand imposed a cost of INR 10,000 on the petitioner, as well as directed him to plant 25 saplings of shade bearing trees in a public vicinity and submit their photographs to the Court as proof, along with an undertaking to take care of them.
Title: Ram Pyari Suman v the State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 24
Considering that Nata Vivah is also considered as a form of marriage in rural areas of Rajasthan, the Rajasthan High Court has directed grant of family pension to a woman, who performed the customary marriage with the deceased government employee.
Justice Ashok Kumar Jain noted that “Nata Vivah” was also recognized by Section 7 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, if performed in accordance with customary rites and ceremonies.
The Court was hearing a petition by a women claiming to be legally wedded wife of the deceased employee and thus seeking family pension post the employee's death which was denied by the State for the lack of any official record of the marriage.
Regarding argument of the petitioner not being nominated as family member, reference was made to the coordinate bench decision in Urmila Devi v State of Rajasthan that held that even if there existed matrimonial disputes between the husband and wife, and the latter was not nominated as a family member, she was entitled to service benefits after the employee's death as she was not legally divorced.
Title: Babu Lal & Anr. v the State of Rajasthan, and other connected petition
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 25
While hearing appeals against conviction orders for the offence of voluntarily causing hurt (section 324, IPC) Rajasthan High Court held that minor discrepancies in the cross-examination owing to natural lapse of memory did not falsify the prosecution case.
The bench of Justice Arun Monga further opined that hostility of witnesses, which was common in criminal trials, was a clear indication of them being influenced but that could not operate as an advantage to the accused and negate an otherwise cogent, consistent and trustworthy evidence on record.
On the point of hostility of prosecution witnesses, it was held that such hostility could not nullify an otherwise cogent and trustworthy evidence.
Furthermore, the Court opined that absence of proof of motive did not, by itself, discredit the prosecution case in light of otherwise clear and convincing evidence establishing the guilt.
It was observed that even though motive was relevant, it was not a sine qua non for conviction if there was direct or circumstantial evidence that undisputedly reflected appellant's guilt.
Title: Rajesh Kumar Tiwari v the Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 26
The Rajasthan High Court has held that merely reciting in the disciplinary order and the appellate order that the records have been “considered” could not be treated as a valid and objective consideration in the legal sense, and was an empty formality.
The bench of Justice Anand Sharma further held that since penalty order and appellate order caused serious prejudice to the delinquent employee and adversely impacted his future promotions, the reasons to arrive at a particular conclusion were bound to be part of the orders and not just be present in the note-sheets of the officials.
“The disciplinary authority is under a legal obligation to apply its independent and judicious mind to the entire material on record, including the specific points of defence raised by the delinquent. Such consideration must be reflected from the penalty order itself, by way of cogent reasons indicating as to why the explanation or defence has been accepted or rejected.”
Title: Rohit Godara v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 27
The Rajasthan High Court has granted relief to the petitioner whose provisional admission to the B.Tech course was cancelled owing to his error in filling his attempted subjects in the OMR for Joint Entrance Test (JET) 2025, opining it to be an inadvertent mistake and a venial lapse on this part.
The bench of Justice Nupur Bhati observed that the petitioner ought to have been more vigilant during the examination, however, there was no deliberate misrepresentation on his part, and nullifying his admission for such an inadvertent error would cause him an irreparable prejudice.
“The documents rather indicate an inadvertent error whereby the petitioner marked the column for the subject Agriculture while answering questions for the subject Physics. Admittedly, the petitioner ought to have been more vigilant during the examination, however, no deliberate misrepresentation or suppression of facts is discernible.”
Rajasthan High Court Dismisses Stale Pension Claim, Raps State For Losing Service Records
Title: Gopal Sharma v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 28
The Rajasthan High Court has held that even though loss or misplacement of service records by the State is a serious administrative failure, the same cannot by itself create a substantive right for an employee to get pension.
At the same time, the bench of Justice Anand Sharma expressed strong disapproval of the State's plea in the matter that the service records of the petitioner were lost. It held that the State is the trustee of public records, and could not be allowed to take shelter behind such a bald assertion.
“Service records constitute the foundational basis for determining the rights and entitlements of an employee and are required to be maintained and preserved with due care in accordance with the statutory rules and administrative instructions…Such conduct not only demonstrates administrative reluctance but also erodes public confidence in governance and accountability. The loss or misplacement of service records is not a mere procedural lapse, but a serious dereliction of duty for which responsibility must be fixed.”
Title: Radhakishan & Anr. v State of Rajasthan & Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 29
The Rajasthan High Court has ruled that a single blow on head with a blunt object resulting in grievous injury does not quality as an attempt to murder in absence of repeated blows with such ferocity that reflect a deliberate design to extinguish life, since mens rea of a homicidal degree is sine qua non for the offence of attempt to murder.
The bench of Justice Farjand Ali further observed that every inimical relationship or alleged animosity does not ipso facto translate into an intention to kill. For the offence of attempt to murder, the animosity has to be so acute and intense that it reasonably leads to the inference that one party intended to eliminate the other.
“While animosity and inimical relations are alleged, it is well-settled that every inimical relationship does not ipso facto translate into an intention to kill. Animosity is a double-edged sword; it may provide motive for false implication as much as it may explain the occurrence. For invoking Section 307 IPC, the animosity must be of such an acute and intense degree that it reasonably leads to the inference that one party intended to eliminate the other.”
Title: Ayasha Chouhan v Waseem Khan
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 30
The Rajashtan High Court has held that Family Courts are bound to recognize and declare dissolution of marriage, where a valid divorce had already taken place under Muslim Personal Law through 'Talaq-ul-Hasan' or 'Mubarat', and such relief could not be denied on "hyper-technical fronts".
Considering the submissions by counsel for the parties that petitions seeking dissolution of marriage by invocation of Muslim Law were routinely rejected by the Family Courts, the division bench of Justice Arun Monga and Justice Yogendra Kumar Purohit laid down guidelines for family courts in the State.
“Family Court is competent to endorse extra Judicial divorces such as khula and mubaarat after verifying their validity through a summary process, primarily ensuring voluntariness and proper documentation. The Supreme Court…reaffirmed that a Mubaarat agreement, entered into voluntarily by both parties, is a valid mode of divorce under Muslim law, and the Family Court can declare the marital status as dissolved based on such an agreement.”
Title: Devendra Kumar Kothari v State of Rajasthan
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 31
While granting relief to a man who was denied the Swami Vivekanand Scholarship for Academic Excellence, the Rajasthan High Court has held that rejecting the scholarship solely based on the fact the applicant's wife was also granted benefit of the scholarship before the wedding, was not legally tenable and ran contrary to the very intent of the Scholarship Schemes.
While analyzing the situation in light of restriction of the scholarship to only one family-member, the bench of Justice Anuroop Singhi highlighted that grant of one scholarship to a female candidate could not result in ineligibility for two families by shifting the definition of “family” after that female's marriage.
Title: Peoples Watch Rajasthan v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 32
The Rajasthan High Court has taken note of inadequate and unhygienic sanitation facilities for jail inmates in the State and has directed the authorities to constitute a “Grievance Redressal Committee” consisting of District Magistrates and Judges, Chief Judicial Magistrates, District Social Welfare Officers, Superintendent of Jail, Secretaries DSLA of all districts of Rajasthan, to examine prisoners' grievances.
The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand directed the members of the committee to make sudden inspection of the jails on any day within three weeks, and privately interview as many prisoners as they consider necessary, and submit a report to the Court.
It further directed the Member Secretary, RSLA, to look into the matter and monitor the effective implementation of this order, and submit a report to the Court before the next date.
Title: Vatsal Bindal v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 33
The Rajasthan High Court has granted relief to a petitioner whose bank account was frozen by the Bank of Baroda, since the account was in receipt of some amount allegedly in relation to a cyber-crime complaint.
While disposing the writ petition, the bench of Justice Sunil Beniwal, directed the bank to keep only such amount frozen in the petitioner's account that was allegedly transferred illegally while allowing the petitioner to freely use his account and make transactions using the remaining balance.
The Court further observed that in case the bank had not received any information regarding the exact figure of the disputed amount, which was alleged by the police to have been received, it shall send a communication to the concerned Investigating Officer/Police to know the amount to be earmarked for lien.
Title: Vilayati Ram v the State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 34
The Rajasthan High Court has set aside the disciplinary action against a government officer stopping his 100% pension for life, which was solely based on statements of a person given to the police under Section 161 CrPC who was neither examined during the departmental enquiry nor before court.
The bench of Justice Ashok Kumar Jain observed that a statement given under Section 161 CrPC, held no evidentiary value under Section 162 CrPC, and could be used only for the purpose of contradiction, but not as substantive evidence, unless the witness was examined.
"In the present case, the material on record clearly indicates that the petitioner was exonerated in the criminal case and there is nothing on record to show that any criminal appeal has been filed, to challenge the judgment of acquittal. Similarly, the Inquiry Officer in the departmental proceedings has also recorded a finding that the petitioner was not guilty of either of the charges. The Disciplinary Authority has reversed these findings solely on the basis of the statement of a witness who was neither produced in the inquiry proceedings nor in criminal trial, thus no opportunity of cross-examination was provided to the present petitioner".
Title: Rajesh Kushwah v State of Rajasthan
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 35
The Rajasthan High Court has frowned upon lawyers' strike to protest against its decision making two Saturdays working in every month, reiterating that lawyers have no right to strike especially when the matter involves personal liberty of citizens.
The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand held that when lawyers boycott Courts, it results in direct violation of the litigants' rights to speedy justice guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. The Court opined that the right to protest has to be balanced with the rights of other citizens such as the right to life and personal liberty.
“Going on strike and remaining absent from Court work is not a solution. All problems have solution and can be settled by debates and dialogues. Every challenge has a solution. Debates and dialogues can lead to a better understanding and also necessary for achieving any solutions… Inspite of above, a call of strike/remaining absent from work by the lawyers is not warranted.”
Title: Rajesh Kushwah v State of Rajasthan
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 35
The Rajasthan High Court has recalled the monetary condition imposed on the release of the applicant, an NDPS convict, owing to which he was not able to get out of jail, despite being released from prison on bail after around 8 years, and directed the trial court to release him.
The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand held that poverty and penalty should not hinder the right to life and liberty, guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution, of the accused who was released from jail.
The Court highlighted that the order was given in light of peculiar circumstances of the case, and shall not be used as a precedent, and directed the copy to be sent to the Bar Council of India as well as Bar Council of Rajasthan.
Title: Kesar Devi v Guddi Devi & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 36
The Rajasthan High Court has taken serious note of a Deputy District Collector and Magistrate's repeated non-compliance of its orders requiring expeditious adjudication of an application filed by a 70 year old widow under the Maintenance and Welfare of the Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (“the Act”).
While underscoring the object of the Act to provide financial security to senior citizens, the bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand stated that the Act was designed for rapid relief. It held that the Magistrate could not be allowed to sit over the matter for indefinite period of time and deliberately flout the directions of the Court.
The Court further observed that no one is above law, and the legal orders had to be universally obeyed to maintain the majesty of law, and also order and justice in the society.
Trial Can't Proceed Without Deciding Plea Of Unsoundness Of Mind Under BNSS: Rajasthan High Court
Title: Amit Rathor v State of Rajasthan & Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 37
The Rajasthan High Court has set aside a trial court order directing continuation of trial merely based on medical report concluding the petitioner to be of sound mind, without any reasoned adjudication on the application filed under Section 368 BNSS.
Section 368 BNSS lays down the procedure for trial of a person of unsound mind.
The bench of Justice Anil Kumar Upman observed that before proceedings with the trial, the trial court is mandated to decide the application under Section 368, BNSS. Hence, while setting aside the challenged order, the trial court was directed to pass a reasoned/speaking order on the application.
Title: Union of India & Ors. v the Gujrat State Fertilizer and Chemical Limited
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 38
The Rajasthan High Court has upheld the compensation of nearly Rs. 10 lakhs imposed on the Western Railway towards damaged consignment of fertilisers, opining that even after being unloaded at the destination, the consignment remained under the control and supervision of the Railways.
While highlighting utmost carelessness and negligence on part of the Railways, the bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand observed that no special efforts were made by the Railways to protect the goods of the claimant that were lying in the open, being exposed to rain.
It was held that if a covered shed was not available at the destination, it was Railway's duty to protect the consignment by providing tarpaulin.