Citations: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 266 to 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 313NOMINAL INDEXVinod Kumar v State of Rajasthan & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 266M/s Shyam and Shyam Oil Mills Private Limited v Gnet Impex Private Limited & Anr.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 267Conflict with law Juvenile X v State of Rajasthan; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 268Jeet Singh v State of Rajasthan, and other connected petitions; 2026...
Citations: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 266 to 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 313
NOMINAL INDEX
Vinod Kumar v State of Rajasthan & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 266
M/s Shyam and Shyam Oil Mills Private Limited v Gnet Impex Private Limited & Anr.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 267
Conflict with law Juvenile X v State of Rajasthan; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 268
Jeet Singh v State of Rajasthan, and other connected petitions; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 269
Om Prakash Shakywal v Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Utpadan Nigam Limited & Anr.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 270
Mohammad Usman v National Investigation Agency, and other connected petitions; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 271
Lrs Of Mr. Bharat Lakhani & Ors. v Vikas Garg; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 272
Jiya & Ors. v the Govt. of Rajasthan & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 273
Tulsa Ram v State of Rajasthan & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 274
Sanjay Kumar & Ors. v State of Rajasthan; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 275
Shubham Gurjar v State of Rajasthan, and other connected petitions; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 276
Matadeen Garg v the State of Rajasthan & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 277
Board of Secondary Education, Rajasthan v Annu; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 278
Peer Mohammad Shah Jilani Dargah Samiti v/s The State Of Rajasthan and batch; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 279
Surendra Kumar & Ors. v the State of Rajasthan & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 280
Harshit Solanki v State of Rajasthan & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 281
X v Y; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 282
Roshan Lal v Veni Ram & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 283
Vikas Modi v State of Rajasthan & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 284
Moola Ram v State of Rajasthan; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 285
Rajendra Prasad v State of Rajasthan & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 286
State of Rajasthan v Premlal, and other connected petition; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 287
Rajasthan State Electricity Board & Anr. v Varda & Anr.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 288
Dr. Uma Gupta v Satya Prakash Kumawat & Anr.; 2026 Livelaw (Raj) 289
Sushma Dayal v Praveen Lodha; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 290
Imran Mansoori v State of Rajasthan; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 291
Sheikh Tarique v Union of India & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 292
National Insurance Company Ltd. v Parmeshwar & Anr., and other connected appeal; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 293
Vinod Kumar v State of Rajasthan, and other connected petitions; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 294
Ranjeet v Central Bureau of Investigation; 2026 LiveLaw(Raj) 295
Mohan Lal Sharma v Ashok Vardhan Sharma & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 296
P v. State of Rajasthan & Anr.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 297
Shri Mahadev Ji Kaluram Ji Ki Bawdi v Shri Milap Singh & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 298
Barbdivya v State of Rajasthan; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 299
Surendra Singh v State of Rajasthan; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 300
Anand Singh v Union of India; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 301
Ashok Kumar v State of Rajasthan; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 302
Aasif Ali v Municipal Corporation & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 303
Smt. Swarna Kalra & Anr. v State of Rajasthan & Anr., and other connected petitions; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 304
Pavan Kumar v State of Rajasthan; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 305
Manish Kumar v State of Rajasthan; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 306
Suraj Singh Dhangar v State of Rajasthan, and other connected petitions; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 307
Ajay Arya & Ors. v State of Rajasthan & Anr., and other connected petitions; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 308
Mukesh v State & Anr.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 309
Rajaram Paliwal v State of Rajasthan & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 310
Basant Hotels Private Limited v the State of Rajasthan; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 311
Anil Chopra v the Returning/assistant Returning Officer; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 312
Manmeet Singh Ahluwalia v Union of India & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 313
Judgments of the Month
Title: Vinod Kumar v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 266
The Rajasthan High Court has directed transport authorities to strictly enforce compliance with the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the rules framed thereunder for all passenger buses plying in the State, irrespective of whether they are registered in Rajasthan or any other State.
Observing that unauthorized modifications in buses have led to several fire incidents resulting in fatal accidents, the Court stressed that both transport authorities and transporters bear a responsibility to ensure that passenger vehicles conform to the prescribed statutory safety norms.
The division bench of Acting Chief Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma and Justice Maneesh Sharma observed,
“…so much more responsibility lies on the department to see that the norms are strictly complied with by the transporter and similarly responsibility also lies on transporter to see that the vehicles are in accordance with the norms laid down for the purpose of passenger buses.”
Title: M/s Shyam and Shyam Oil Mills Private Limited v Gnet Impex Private Limited & Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 267
The Rajasthan High Court has held that once pleadings are completed, and affidavits and relevant material has already come on record, the endeavour of the Court should ordinarily be to decide the application for temporary injunction itself rather than devoting time to decide the ad-interim injunction.
The bench of Justice Farjand Ali observed that if an elaborate hearing is required for considering the prayer for ad-interim protection, the Court might be in a position to finally decide the application for temporary injunction itself which would advance the object of expeditious justice and avoid unnecessary multiplicity of interlocutory proceedings.
“…the very object underlying an ad interim injunction is to grant immediate and short-lived protection in exceptional circumstances until the application for temporary injunction can be finally heard. Once notice has been served upon the opposite party, pleadings have been completed, replies have been filed and affidavits and relevant material have come on record, the endeavour of the Court should ordinarily be to decide the application for temporary injunction itself rather than devoting considerable judicial time to an elaborate adjudication of the ad interim prayer,” the Court said.
Title: Conflict with law Juvenile X v State of Rajasthan
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 268
Raising apprehension of an 'intentional' lapse in investigation by the police, Rajasthan High Court recently upheld the rejection of bail to a 13-year old accused in a murder case.
The bench of Justice Ravi Chirania observed that despite complainant's written refusal for post-mortem at the relevant time, it was police's duty to conduct the Panchnama while handing over the body to the family.
“…though the complainant may have refused for post mortem at the relevant time by submitting a hand-written letter, but it was the duty of the police officer who was present at that time in the hospital to conduct the Panchnama, who did not conduct the same while handing over the body to the complainant and other family members for performing the funeral. There is a serious lacuna on the part of police which appears to be intentional in conducting the investigation in the case,” the Court said.
Title: Jeet Singh v State of Rajasthan, and other connected petitions
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 269
While rejecting bail in an alleged cyber crime case, the Rajasthan High Court observed that the crime was a result of complainant's greed and directed the Superintendent of Police to recover the cost of the investigation in the case from the complainant.
The bench of Justice Ravi Chirania opined that the reason behind successful commission of most of the cyber crimes was people's greed to earn unusual high returns, and to investigate the consequence of such greed, the State machinery had to be put into action.
“To investigate the consequences of such greed, the State has no other option, but to put its machinery into motion, however, precious public money cannot be allowed to be expended in investigating such offences which, prima facie have occurred due to greed of such persons.”
Title: Om Prakash Shakywal v Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Utpadan Nigam Limited & Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 270
The Rajasthan High Court has held that a writ petition challenging a recruitment process cannot be dismissed merely on the grounds of it becoming infructuous due to lapse of more than 6 months or the fact that subsequent selection processes were culminated.
“Although we do not agree with the view taken by the learned Single Judge as regards the writ petition having become otiose and infructuous merely because more than six months time was lapsed or on the ground that further subsequent selection processes have been initiated and culminated, the same cannot be a reason for dismissal of writ petition. Law is well settled based on the legal maxim Actus Curiae Neminem Gravabit that no Court shall oust a litigant merely on account of pendency of the writ petition for several years. No person can be made to suffer on account of the delay in deciding the cases.”
\The Court referred to a Supreme Court decision in Prabodh Verma & Ors. vs. State of U.P. & Ors., to hold that, “writ petition would not be maintainable if a person is challenging appointment of candidate without impleading them as party to the writ petition”.
Title: Mohammad Usman v National Investigation Agency, and other connected petitions
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 271
Rajasthan High Court denied bail to three men accused of being the residents of Myanmar and illegally importing Rohingya-origin girls to India under the false pretext of solemnizing their marriage and then selling them off.
The division bench of Justice Inderjeet Singh and Justice Bhuwan Goyal observed that taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, statements of the protected witnesses and the seriousness of the allegations, the rejection of bail had to be upheld.
Title: Lrs Of Mr. Bharat Lakhani & Ors. v Vikas Garg
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 272
The Rajasthan High Court has upheld a Rent Tribunal's order permitting amendment of an eviction petition to incorporate reference to a postal receipt and acknowledgement due (AD) card that had already been filed along with the original petition but were omitted from the pleadings due to a clerical error.
Holding that marking documents already on record as exhibits does not prejudice the opposite party or enlarge the case of the litigant, Justice Farjand Ali observed that hyper-technical objections should not be allowed to defeat adjudication on merits.
The bench was of the opinion that the amendment neither changed the character of the eviction proceedings nor introduced a fresh cause of action, hence, permitting such exhibit marking did not enable the respondent (eviction-petitioner) to improve or embellish his case by introducing fresh evidence.
Title: Jiya & Ors. v the Govt. of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 273
The Rajasthan High Court has directed its Registry to not register any cases as “Criminal Writ Petition”, opining that there was no such concept provided in the Constitution of India.
The division bench of Acting Chief Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma and Justice Maneesh Sharma held that it was for the Court to examine the case for the purpose of placing them before the concerned roster.
“Registry has also entertained it as a Criminal Writ Petition, whereas there is no such concept of Criminal Writ Petition provided in the Constitution. A writ petition can be filed for raising the issues which may also relate to a criminal matter but the same would not be treated as a 'Criminal Writ Petition' and the same can only be registered as a writ petition alone. It is for the Court to examine the case or for the purpose of placing them before the concerned roster. Henceforth, the Registry is directed not to register any case as 'Criminal Writ Petition'". the court said.
Rajasthan High Court Imposes 3-Year Social Media Ban On Youth Booked For Morphing Minor's Photos
Title: Tulsa Ram v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 274
The Rajasthan High Court has imposed a 3-year social media ban on a youth accused of morphing images of a minor and uploading them on social media with an intention to defame her.
FIR was registered against him under the relevant provisions of the BNS, POCSO Act, and the Information Technology Act.
“The applicant-accused shall submit an affidavit/undertaking before the trial Court for not using social media platform including facebook, instagram, thread, snapchat etc. for a period of three years and if it is found that the applicant-accused is using any of the social media platform in his own name or any fictitious name then his bail order may be recalled by the trial Court itself.
Title: Sanjay Kumar & Ors. v State of Rajasthan
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 275
The Rajasthan High Court has held that experience gained by rendering medical services in Government Health institutions, and corresponding benefits, could not be denied to the concerned persons merely because their salary was routed through a charitable trust under an administrative arrangement approved by the State Government.
The bench of Justice Nupur Bhati observed that the mode of salary disbursement was not of legal significance since it could not eclipse the undisputed fact of actual service being rendered and experience being acquired.
Title: Shubham Gurjar v State of Rajasthan, and other connected petitions
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 276
The Rajasthan High Court has refused to grant bail to several foreign MBBS graduates accused of securing mandatory internships in government and private hospitals by using fake Foreign Medical Graduate Examination (FMGE) clearance certificates.
The bench of Justice Ravi Chirania observed, "Though, the petitioners are students, however, their admitted act of using fake certificates of FMGE clearly shows that despite having the professional degrees, they did the above mentioned serious act, which cannot be taken lightly in the given facts and circumstances."
Title: Matadeen Garg v the State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 277
The Rajasthan High Court has imposed Rs. 1,00,000 costs on the Department of Law and Legal Affairs, the High Court administration, Chief Accounts Officer (Directorate of Estate), and Director (Pension and Pensioners Welfare), for withholding the retirement benefits of a former trial court judge, who retired in 1999.
The division bench of Acting Chief Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma and Justice Maneesh Sharma directed the respondents to release the dues within 7 days, with an interest of 9% per annum, to the petitioner who was running in his 80s.
Title: Board of Secondary Education, Rajasthan v Annu
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 278
The Rajasthan High Court has held that courts cannot direct educational boards to alter the date of birth recorded in school certificates, observing that such requests must first be examined by the concerned Board itself. [2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 278]
Setting aside a single judge's order directing the Board of Secondary Education, Rajasthan, to change a student's date of birth in her Class X certificate, the Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma and Justice Maneesh Sharma clarified that an aggrieved person may approach the civil court if dissatisfied with the Board's decision.
Title: Peer Mohammad Shah Jilani Dargah Samiti v/s The State Of Rajasthan and batch
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 279
The Rajasthan High Court has dismissed a batch of petitions challenging show-cause and eviction notices issued to Mosques, Madrasas and Dargahs situated within 50km of the India-Pakistan border, observing that the matter pertained to national security and was not a case of religious discrimination. [2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 279]
The court was hearing a batch of pleas by various Madrasas, Mosques, and Dargahs challenging validity of the eviction/vacation/ and show-cause notices issued by the state authorities, qua the petitioners' properties and constructions situated within a radius of approximately 50 km from the Indo–Pakistan border.
Justice Sameer Jain referred to Ministry of Home Affairs' notification of 11.10.2021, under Section 139 of the Border Security Force Act, as per which the Central Government enhanced and rationalized the territorial jurisdiction and operational powers of the Border Security Force in border areas, including regions extending up to 50 kilometres from the International Border.
"this Court holds that in matters involving national security, strict adherence to the traditional rigours of natural justice is not always warranted, and a pragmatic, situation responsive approach is permissible, provided that there exists material justifying such action. In the present case, sufficient procedural compliance has been made, and no prejudice can be said to have been caused to the petitioners, who themselves have abstained from participation," it held.
Dismissing the petitions court however directed constitution of a Committee comprising the District Collector, Superintendent of Police, and representative of the Border Security Force (BSF) of the area concerned, to examine cases (on individual basis) involving sensitive properties.
Title: Surendra Kumar & Ors. v the State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 280
Observing that mining leaseholders bear a responsibility to ensure that illegal mining is not carried out in the areas allotted to them, the Rajasthan High Court has cautioned that leaseholders found indulging in unauthorised extraction may face cancellation of their leases. [2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 279]
The division bench of Acting Chief Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma and Justice Maneesh Sharma further clarified that, in the event of such violations coming to light, the Mining Engineer would be at liberty to cancel the leases of the erring mining operators.
Title: Harshit Solanki v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 281
The Rajasthan High Court has upheld the denial of compassionate appointment to the son of a government employee who suffered 75% disability following a brain stroke, holding that compassionate appointment cannot be extended to disabilities falling outside the eight categories exhaustively enumerated under the Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of Dependents of Permanent Total Disabled Government Servants Rules, 2023. [2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 281]
A Division Bench of Dr. Justice Pushpendra Singh Bhati and Justice Sandeep Shah observed that although welfare legislations ordinarily merit liberal interpretation, courts cannot rewrite statutory provisions or introduce categories consciously omitted by the legislature.
“A conjoint reading of Rules 2(b) and 2(f) indicates that the Legislature has consciously restricted the benefit of compassionate appointment to cases where permanent total disability arises solely and directly from an accident while on duty and is of the nature specifically enumerated under Rule 2(f)... Such legislative drafting manifests a conscious policy choice to confine this exceptional benefit only to those situations expressly contemplated by the Rule,” the Court held.
Title: X v Y
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 282
While dispensing with the requirement of serving notice upon the husband in a transfer petition in a matrimonial matter, Rajasthan High Court observed that in many matrimonial cases, transfer petitions remained pending merely at the stage of service. [2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 282]
It was held that issuance of notice in matrimonial transfer petitioner and keeping such matters pending for years, particularly when interim stay orders continued, did not advance cause of justice.
The bench of Justice Farjand Ali further opined that in matrimonial disputes, where one spouse was already appearing before the Courts situated at the residential place of other spouse, insisting upon continuation of connected matrimonial proceedings at different stations was cumbersome and impractical that prolonged parties' agony and delayed substantive justice.
Title: Roshan Lal v Veni Ram & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 283
While upholding appointment of Advocate Commissioner under Order 39 Rule 7 CPC, the Rajasthan High Court observed that the power was to facilitate effective adjudication of the issues arising at the interlocutory stage, and the Commissioner's report did not confer or extinguish any substantive right of either party.
The bench of Justice Farjand Ali opined that neither party was relieved from their obligation to establish their case by leading admissible evidence during trial because of the findings in the Commissioner's report.
Title: Vikas Modi v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 284
The Rajasthan High Court has held that once a land is notified in the Master Plan as a 'Green Belt', every authority exercising powers relating to land use, conversion, regularization, allotment of pattas, etc. is bound to act within the four corners of the Master Plan and any action contrary to the same would be illegal and liable to be quashed.
“Master Plan prepared under the planning statutes is not merely an advisory document or a statement of governmental intent, it is a statutory instrument having binding force upon all authorities and citizens alike…Green Belt areas constitute vital ecological and environmental assets of a city and their protection is not merely a statutory obligation, but also a constitutional imperative flowing from the principles underlying Articles 21, 48A and 51A(g) of the Constitution of India. Any attempt to dilute or defeat such protection through unauthorized administrative actions must be dealt with firmly.”
The Court further opined that the doctrine of bona fide purchaser could not be invoked to validate an illegal transaction. Similarly, principle of estoppel could not operate against a statue or compel a public authority to perpetuate an action contrary to law.
The Court also rejected the argument of violation of Article 300A and held that the constitutional protection did not extend to preservation of rights created in violation of law.
Title: Moola Ram v State of Rajasthan
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 285
The Rajasthan High Court recently permitted a murder convict lodged in an open air camp to solemnise his marriage with a woman convict who has been released on bail, observing that the right to marry is an intrinsic facet of the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.
A division bench of Justice Pushpendra Singh Bhati and Justice Praveer Bhatnagar observed,
"solemnization of marriage between two consenting adults is an intrinsic facet of right of life and personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The institution of marriage finds recognition across all major religions and cultures and has constituted a foundational unit of society."
Title: Rajendra Prasad v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 286
The Rajasthan High Court has made it clear that Station House Officers (SHOs) cannot not act as a mere "post office" by forwarding the documents and charge sheet to the Court, prepared based on the probe conducted by the Investigating Officer.
It said that they are duty bound to supervise, check and ensure that the investigation was conducted in an impartial, fair and expeditious manner, in accordance with law.
“A fair and impartial investigation is the bedrock of justice…Therefore every Station House Officer (for short “SHO”) and Investigation Officer has a constitutional and legal duty to ensure the investigation to be fair, transparent and based only on evidence. Hence, it is their statutory duty to conduct the investigation without bias, fear or favour and in accordance with law...
SHO of any Police Station cannot act as a mere post office, simply forwarding documents to the concerned Court. The SHO is duty bound to supervise and check whether the investigation has been conducted by the Investigating Officer in a proper manner or not..." the court said.
Rajasthan High Court Acquits Man Sentenced To Death For Wife's Murder, Cites Lapses In Probe
Title: State of Rajasthan v Premlal, and other connected petition
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 287
The Rajasthan High Court recently acquitted a man sentenced to death by a trial court for the murder of his wife, holding that the prosecution had failed to establish a complete and unbroken chain of circumstances pointing only to his guilt and that the investigation suffered from serious lapses.
The division bench of Justice Vinit Kumar Mathur and Justice Chandra Shekhar Sharma reiterated that suspicion howsoever strong, could not replace legal proof and where two views were reasonably possible on the evidence, the once favouring the accused prevails.
“…on an overall appreciation of the evidence, this Court finds that the prosecution has failed to establish several essential links in the chain of circumstances. The last seen circumstance remains doubtful; the motive remains unproved; the investigation suffers from material omissions and procedural irregularities; the recoveries are surrounded by serious suspicion; the electronic evidence lacks proper foundational proof; and the medical evidence does not conclusively support the prosecution theory to the exclusion of every other possibility.”
Title: Rajasthan State Electricity Board & Anr. v Varda & Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 288
After around 35 years of the incident, Rajasthan High Court upheld the liability of the State for paying compensation in a case of death by electrocution due to a live wire that had broken and fallen on the ground.
The bench of Justice Sandeep Taneja took into account the fact that the electricity line had not been repaired for a long time, and there was also negligence on part of the deputed line-man, who was unavailable on duty at the relevant time.
While underscoring the principle of strict liability, the Court highlighted that since there was escape and transmission of electricity i.e. a dangerous substance, that caused harm, the State was liable.
Title: Dr. Uma Gupta v Satya Prakash Kumawat & Anr.
Citation: 2026 Livelaw (Raj) 289
The Rajasthan High Court has held that an order rejecting an application under Section 311 CrPC seeking recall of a witness for cross-examination is interlocutory in nature and, therefore, cannot be challenged in revision proceedings under Section 397 CrPC.
Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand set aside an order of the revisional court which had permitted the accused in a cheque bounce case to cross-examine the complainant, after holding that the revision petition itself was not maintainable.
Title: Sushma Dayal v Praveen Lodha
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 290
The Rajasthan High Court has held that proceedings before a Court established under the Negotiable Instruments Act and a Commercial Court stand on an equal footing, and an accused cannot be denied access to original records necessary for his defence merely because they have been summoned in parallel proceedings.
The bench of Justice Baljinder Singh Sandhu observed that the right to a fair trial includes access to materials required for effective cross-examination and defence, and set aside a trial court order refusing to summon records relating to a criminal case alleging interpolation of a cheque.
“Once the original record is available and the matter pertains to interpolation in the cheque and counter-foil, certainly the original cheque has to be put across to the complainant in the cross-examination and the same purpose cannot be solved by submitting photocopy or the certified copy. Therefore, it is the right of the petitioner to put up his defence and best opportunity is required to be given to him,” Court said.
Title: Imran Mansoori v State of Rajasthan
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 291
The Rajasthan High Court has held that once a party stands acquitted in a gambling case, based on withdrawal of the criminal case, there is no reason to retain the seized money in the Treasury or in the Government Fund.
The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand thus directed the authorities to release the amount seized from the petitioner, subject to the condition that the petitioner shall disclose the details of the source of receipt of the amount.
The Court held that the details submitted by the petitioner shall be verified by the Income Tax Department, and if the explanation was not found to be satisfactory, appropriate action could be taken against the petitioner.
Title: Sheikh Tarique v Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 292
The Rajasthan High Court has dismissed an appeal filed by a medical student who sought permission to appear in the remaining papers of the MBBS Final Professional Part-II examination, observing that the Court cannot ignore the interests of patients who may eventually be treated by a candidate who has failed to clear the course despite repeated attempts over fourteen years.
A division bench of Justice Arun Monga and Justice Maneesh Sharma held that considerations such as the appellant's career prospects and financial hardship could not outweigh the larger public interest. It observed:
“A court cannot remain unmindful of the fate of patients who would be treated by a physician who has been unable to demonstrate the minimum competence prescribed, despite attempts spread over fourteen years.”
Title: National Insurance Company Ltd. v Parmeshwar & Anr., and other connected appeal
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 293
The Rajasthan High Court has held that an insurance company cannot avoid liability on the ground that the driver of the offending vehicle possessed a fake driving licence unless it proves the allegation by examining the concerned licensing authority.
Justice Ashutosh Kumar was hearing two appeals filed by the National Insurance Company Limited challenging an award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sikar, in favour of the claimants. The insurer had contended that there had been a breach of the insurance policy as the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess a valid driving licence at the time of the accident.
The Court noted that the insurance company had failed to summon the licensing authority to verify whether the licence in question had actually been issued by it. The Court observed:
“…Insurance Company did not try to call the licencing authority to prove or verify the fact that the driving licence attached as Exhibit-10 was not issued by it. Therefore, while relying upon the judgment passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in case of Moda Ram & Ors. (supra), in the present case, it cannot be presumed that the driving licence issued in favour of the respondent-driver was a fake one as the Insurance Company failed to call the licencing authority to prove or verify the fact that such authority did not issue that licence.”
Title: Vinod Kumar v State of Rajasthan, and other connected petitions
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 294
The Rajasthan High Court has dismissed a batch of writ petitions filed by candidates seeking appointment to the posts of Assistant Professor (Vyakaran), Assistant Professor (Sahitya) and Assistant Professor (Samanya Sanskrit), holding that courts cannot expand the eligibility qualifications prescribed under the recruitment rules.
Justice Ganesh Ram Meena observed that the State, as an employer, is the best judge of the qualifications required for recruitment and that the Court cannot read into the rules qualifications that have not been prescribed.
Addressing the petitioners' argument regarding the appointment of guest faculty, the Court held that even if persons lacking the requisite qualifications had been engaged as guest faculty, such appointments could not form the basis for regular recruitment. The Court observed,
“In case, the respondents have engaged any candidate without having requisite qualification as provided under the Rules, such appointments of guest faculty cannot be made basis for the regular recruitment without holding qualification of NET or SET in that particular concerned subject.”
Title: Ranjeet v Central Bureau of Investigation
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw(Raj) 295
The Rajasthan High Court has quashed an FIR against two men, observing that the very origin and basis of the criminal proceedings no longer existed, since the Single Judge's order directing investigation against them had already been set aside and the underlying writ petition itself stood dismissed.
The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand held:
"The origin and genesis of the impugned FIR is no more in existence. The order dated 13.01.2010 directing the investigation in the alleged offence and registration of the FIR was quashed by the Division Bench vide order dated 10.11.2010, while remanding the matter back to the Single Bench and the main matter seeking registration of FIR against the petitioner has already been dismissed vide order dated 19.01.2026 for non-compliance of peremptory order."
Title: Mohan Lal Sharma v Ashok Vardhan Sharma & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 296
The Rajasthan High Court has quashed criminal proceedings initiated against a former school principal, in a cheque dishonour case after noting that he had resigned from the post before the cheque was issued.
Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand observed that once the petitioner had resigned from the post, his employer-employee relationship with the school came to an end and he could not be fastened with criminal liability under the Negotiable Instruments Act.
"Criminal prosecution of any person is a serious matter as it affects the liberty of that person. No greater damage can be done to the reputation of a person than dragging him in a criminal case... the petitioner is neither liable nor responsible for the cheque in question issued, if any, under his signatures, after his resignation from the post of Principal of the School."
Rajasthan High Court Quashes Rape FIR After Prosecutrix Says Case Was Filed Due To Family Pressure
Title: P v. State of Rajasthan & Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 297
The Rajasthan High Court has quashed criminal proceedings in a rape case after noting that the petitioner and the prosecutrix had married even before the registration of the FIR, were now living together in a happy and stable matrimonial relationship, and that the prosecutrix stated the FIR had been lodged due to pressure from her family. [2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 297]
Justice Baljinder Singh Sandhu observed that the parties had married in 2020 and that their relationship had endured for nearly six years despite the pendency of the criminal proceedings. The Court held that permitting the prosecution to continue would only cause unnecessary hardship to both parties and jeopardise their settled matrimonial life.
"Having voluntarily chosen to live together long ago, and having reunited despite the intervening litigation, this Court is of the considered view that no useful purpose would be served by allowing the criminal proceedings to continue merely because the trial has reached an advanced stage."
Title: Shri Mahadev Ji Kaluram Ji Ki Bawdi v Shri Milap Singh & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 298
The Rajasthan High Court has set aside a trial court order rejecting an application seeking police assistance for the implementation and enforcement of an interim injunction granted in favour of the petitioner in a dispute concerning renovation of the Lord Mahadev Temple.
Justice Farjand Ali held that there is a marked distinction between proceedings under Order XXXIX Rule 2-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which are punitive in nature, and a prayer seeking police assistance for implementation of an existing injunction order.
The Court observed that once an injunction order has been passed, issuance of ancillary directions to ensure its effective implementation falls within the supervisory and inherent powers of the Court. It emphasized that the majesty of law lies not merely in passing judicial orders but equally in ensuring that they are respected, honoured and effectively implemented.
Title: Barbdivya v State of Rajasthan
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 299
The Rajasthan High Court has ordered the Director General of Police to conduct an inquiry in the matter of a Police Inspector making reels with his son, and uploading on social media platforms, to create fan following.
The bench of Justice Ashok Kumar Jain observed that the alleged acts constitute 'very serious misconduct' on part of the officer.
“A Police Inspector indulged in preparing reels and further uploading them on social media, whether Instagram, Facebook or any other social media platform, with the assistance of his son, thereby creating a fan following, which itself is a very serious misconduct. The DGP, Rajasthan, is directed to conduct an inquiry and send a report to this Court within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Title: Surendra Singh v State of Rajasthan
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 300
The Rajasthan High Court has quashed criminal proceedings initiated against a Station House Officer (SHO) under Section 175 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), holding that a bona fide failure to produce a case diary due to non-receipt of communication from the Public Prosecutor cannot attract criminal liability. [2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 300]
Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand observed that mens rea is an essential ingredient of the offence under Section 175 IPC and cautioned that treating every bona fide lapse by police officers as an intentional omission would result in "a flood of such kind of complaints" against them.
At the same time, the Court also highlighted the significance of finding a solution to the issue of police officials not obeying court directions.
Title: Anand Singh v Union of India
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 301
The Rajasthan High Court has held that an undertrial prisoner does not forfeit the right to alienate his property and continues to enjoy his rights even in jail wherein he can validly execute a registered General or Special Power of Attorney and his attorney can legally sell the property.
The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand observed,
"the law is clear that a pre-convict/undertrial prisoner does not forfeit the right to alienate his property. He can validly execute a registered General or Special Power of Attorney from jail, through the Jail Superintendent and his attorney can thereafter, legally sell the property. The only requirement is strict adherence to procedural safeguards of attestation, registration and absence of any court attachment".
Revision Court Cannot Direct Trial Court To Take Cognizance Against Accused: Rajasthan High Court
Title: Ashok Kumar v State of Rajasthan
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 302
The Rajasthan High Court has held that a Court exercising revisional jurisdiction cannot direct the Trial Court to take cognizance under Section 398 CrPC, as it merely empowers courts to order further inquiry.
The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand set aside the order directing the Trial Court to take cognizance for cruelty under Section 498A of IPC. The bench empahsized;
"Revisional Court/Sessions Judge or Additional Sessions Judge cannot issue a direction to the Trial Court to take cognizance against the accused. If the Revisional Court was of the view that the order passed by the learned Trial Court was perverse, the matter could have been remitted to the Trial Court for passing fresh order on the basis of the evidence available on the record".
Title: Aasif Ali v Municipal Corporation & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 303
Rajasthan High Court disposed of the PIL that raised the issue of unlawful slaughtering of animals and sought regulation of unlicensed meat shops operating in Jodhpur, opining that there was no need for any inquiry or interference in the minute aspects of regulatory framework governing meat trade in the city.
At the same time, the division bench of Dr. Justice Pushpendra Singh Bhati and Justice Praveer Bhatnagar observed that in case any shop was found to be operating without requisite license, the concerned person shall be informed of the requirement to obtain such a license, and the application shall be considered strictly as per prescribed law.
Title: Smt. Swarna Kalra & Anr. v State of Rajasthan & Anr., and other connected petitions
Citaiton: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 304
The Rajasthan High Court has quashed charges under Section 305 IPC against teachers accused of abetting the suicide of a Class XII student, holding that mere reprimand or disciplinary action for poor attendance, academic performance or indiscipline cannot amount to abetment of suicide in the absence of instigation, intentional aid or the requisite mens rea. [2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 304]
The bench of Justice Kuldeep Mathur observed that the relationship between a teacher and a student is founded on discipline, guidance and academic supervision, and teachers are duty-bound to maintain discipline in educational institutions.
“A teacher is duty bound to maintain discipline and may legitimately reprimand a student for irregular attendance, poor academic performance or indiscipline. Such acts, performed in the ordinary course of discharging professional duties, cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be construed as instigation or intentional aid to commit suicide.”
Title: Pavan Kumar v State of Rajasthan
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 305
The Rajasthan High Court recently quashed the recovery of ₹3 lakh compensation from a police officer in a POCSO case, holding that no adverse order could have been passed against him without first issuing notice and affording him an opportunity of hearing.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand observed that the trial court had violated the principles of natural justice by directing recovery of the compensation from the petitioner-police officer without following due process.
Title: Manish Kumar v State of Rajasthan
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 306
The Rajasthan High Court has held that mere non-registration of a vehicle cannot be a ground to deny interim custody to its owner if he is not an accused in the concerned NDPS case.
The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand ordered release of an unregistered vehicle seized by the police in an NDPS case, subject to the condition that the owner gets it registered within 30 days and does not ply it on public roads until such registration.
Referring to the Supreme Court's decision in Bishwajit Dey v. State of Assam, the Court noted that where a vehicle is stolen and used for transporting contraband, or where contraband is recovered from a third-party occupant without any allegation that it was stored or transported with the owner's knowledge or connivance, the owner is ordinarily entitled to interim custody, provided he is not arrayed as an accused.
Title: Suraj Singh Dhangar v State of Rajasthan, and other connected petitions
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 307
The Rajasthan High Court has held that non-supply of written grounds of arrest does not automatically entitle an accused to bail unless demonstrable prejudice is shown. [2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 307]
The Court observed that while written grounds of arrest are ordinarily required, the real test is whether the accused was made aware of the grounds of arrest, whether the factum of arrest was communicated to the family members, and whether the alleged procedural lapse caused any actual prejudice.
A bench of Justice Pramil Kumar Mathur made the observations while rejecting the bail applications of persons accused of facilitating the use of unfair means during a recruitment examination conducted by the Central Council for Research in Ayurvedic Sciences (CCRAS).
"Though the petitioners dispute the sufficiency of compliance, no material has been placed before this Court to prima facie establish that they remained unaware of the accusation forming the basis of their arrest or that they were disabled from effectively exercising any constitutional or statutory remedy on account of the alleged procedural lapse."
Larger Conspiracy Uncovered During Probe Justifies Registration Of Second FIR: Rajasthan High Court
Title: Ajay Arya & Ors. v State of Rajasthan & Anr., and other connected petitions
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 308
The Rajasthan High Court has held that merely because the material leading to registration of a subsequent FIR surfaced during the investigation of an earlier FIR, the later FIR does not become impermissible. [2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 308]
While dismissing a quashing petition, Justice Baljinder Singh Sandhu observed that where subsequent information discloses a distinct incident, a separate criminal activity, or a larger conspiracy that does not form part of the same transaction, registration of a second FIR is legally permissible.
Title: Mukesh v State & Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 309
While setting aside charges framed against a man for offences including repeated rape under Section 376(2)(n) IPC, the Rajasthan High Court held that where both parties are conscious that the prosecutrix's first marriage is subsisting, it would ordinarily be difficult to conclude that she was induced into a physical relationship solely on the promise of marriage.
The bench of Justice Kuldeep Mathur was hearing a revision petition challenging an order of the Additional Sessions Judge (Women Atrocity Cases), Bikaner, framing charges against the petitioner under Sections 450, 420, 376(2)(n), 366 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code.
“In the present case, it is an admitted position that the complainant was legally married to Ishwar Ram and that no decree of divorce had been obtained at the relevant point of time. Consequently, any alleged promise of marriage could not have been lawfully fulfilled unless the existing marriage had first bee dissolved in accordance with law. Prima facie, therefore, it cannot be said that the complainant's consent was obtained solely on a legally enforceable promise of marriage.”
Title: Rajaram Paliwal v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 310
The Rajasthan High Court has observed that unlawful societal practices such as coercion, intimidation and social ostracism strike at the very foundation of the rule of law, and that threatening or socially boycotting witnesses during an investigation amounts to a serious interference with the administration of criminal justice. [2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 310]
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Farjand Ali directed the Investigating Officer (IO) to objectively and expeditiously examine any complaints by witnesses alleging intimidation, coercion or social boycott, and to take preventive, protective and penal measures in accordance with law.
“…any endeavour to obstruct the course of investigation, terrorise witnesses or perpetuate unlawful social sanctions shall be viewed with the seriousness it deserves and the competent authorities shall remain under an obligation to deal with such conduct in accordance with the mandate of law as well as the spirit underlying the directions issued by this Court in Deepa Ram Meghwal (supra) and by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shakti Vahini (supra).”
Udaipur Hills "Brutally Cut" For Hotels, City's Condition 'Pitiable': Rajasthan High Court
Title: Basant Hotels Private Limited v the State of Rajasthan
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 311
The Rajasthan High Court has expressed anguish over the large-scale destruction of Udaipur's hills, observing that the city's hills and mountains have been "brutally cut" and replaced by hotels, resorts and commercial establishments, reducing the city to a "pitiable state."
A single-judge bench of Justice Sameer Jain made the observations while hearing a petition filed by Basant Hotels Pvt. Ltd., which has challenged the application of the 2018 Hill Policy to its hotel project and alleged hostile discrimination by the authorities.
"...the Court is deeply pained to observe that the city of Udaipur, historically renowned for its lakes, mountains/hills (Magris), and wildlife sanctuaries, has been reduced to a pitiable state. Under the guise of the sustainable development theory and arbitrarily crafted policies, hundreds of hotels, resorts, and commercial properties have mushroomed near sanctuaries, sensitive ecosystems, lakes, and upon the hills."
Title: Anil Chopra v the Returning/assistant Returning Officer
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 312
The Rajasthan High Court has dismissed an application filed by the Returning Officer, District Magistrate-cum-Returning Officer, Chief Electoral Officer and the Election Commission of India seeking deletion of their names from an election petition challenging the 2024 Lok Sabha election from the Jaipur Rural Parliamentary constituency.
A bench of Justice Vinod Kumar Bharwani opined that the authorities could not be removed from the proceedings, as the election petition was based on conflicting official records regarding rejected postal ballots; hence, their presence was necessary for the adjudication of the dispute.
Title: Manmeet Singh Ahluwalia v Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 313
The Rajasthan High Court has quashed the extension of an Indian Revenue Service (IRS) officer's suspension, holding that it reflected "personal vendetta" on the part of certain high-ranking officials and amounted to an abuse of administrative power.
The Court imposed ₹5 lakh as exemplary costs on the Union Government and directed that the officer be considered reinstated after the expiry of the initial 90-day suspension period, with consequential service benefits.
The division bench of Justice Munnuri Laxman and Justice Anuroop Singhi observed that the suspensions were extended only to convert it into a punishment and to deprive the petitioner from his right of being considered for promotion.
Further, the petitioner was directed to be treated as being reinstated from the expiry of initial 90 days suspension period, and if found eligible, be promoted from the same date as of his juniors.