Citations: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 161 to 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 214NOMINAL INDEXAnil Kumar v State of Rajasthan; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 161Jagdish Singh v State of Rajasthan & Anr.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 162Smt. Guddi Bai v Raghuveer; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 163Nishi Mishra & Anr. v State of Rajasthan; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 164Kamlesh Kumar v State of Rajasthan & Anr.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 165Dr Charan...
Citations: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 161 to 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 214
NOMINAL INDEX
Anil Kumar v State of Rajasthan; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 161
Jagdish Singh v State of Rajasthan & Anr.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 162
Smt. Guddi Bai v Raghuveer; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 163
Nishi Mishra & Anr. v State of Rajasthan; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 164
Kamlesh Kumar v State of Rajasthan & Anr.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 165
Dr Charan Jeet Singh v State of Rajasthan & Anr.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 166
Ishita Bhardwaj v/s State of Rajasthan and connected; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 167
Manish Dotasara v State of Rajasthan & Ors. and other connected petitions; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 168
Surendra Pal Singh Sahni v State of Rajasthan; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 169
Dinesh Kumawat & Ors. v Union of India & Ors., and other connected petitions; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 170
Vikas Wadhwa v Punjab and Sind Bank & Anr.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 171
Mohammad Atik & Ors. v State of Rajasthan & Anr.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 172
Krishnawtar Nagar & Ors. v Smt. Vimla Devi Nagar; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 173
Rohit Nayak & Anr. v Kailash & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 174
Akshya v State of Rajasthan; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 175
Mohammad Rahil Belim v State of Rajasthan, and other connected petition; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 176
Islam Khan and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan and Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 177
Rohitashva v State of Rajasthan & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 178
Chhoti Devi v State of Rajasthan; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 179
Kamal Rathore v State of Rajasthan, and other connected matters; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 180
Shri Jambeshwar Paryavaran And Jeev Raksha Pradesh Sanstha v State of Rajasthan & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 181
Rajasthan Prosecution Officers Association v State of Rajasthan & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 182
Ms. Shubhra Panwar v the State of Rajasthan & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 183
United India Insurance Company Limited v Smt. Mamta Sharma & Ors, and other connected petitions; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 184
L v P; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 185
Dr. Ram Gopal Sharma v State of Rajasthan & Ors., and other connected matters; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 186
KB v SK; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 187
Gajendra Mourya v State of Rajasthan & Anr.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 188
Prashant Kaushik & Ors. v State of Rajasthan & Anr.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 189
Devesh Sharma v State of Rajasthan & Anr.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 190
Hari Ram v Chunni Devi; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 191
Lal Singh Chouhan v State of Rajasthan & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 192
Jhabra Ram v State of Rajasthan; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 193
LRs of Mahaveer Singh & Ors. v Narendra Singh & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 194
Rakesh Sharma v Manju Devi & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 195
Gopiram & Ors. v the Ajmer Vodyut Vitran Nigam Ltd.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 196
Nurul Islam & Anr. v State of Rajasthan; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 197
Milap Chand Dandiav v State of Rajasthan; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 198
Ramji Lal Saini v the State of Rajasthan & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 199
State of Rajasthan v Smt. Seems Jakhar; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 200
Bhawani Singh Shekhawat v Fanishwar Sharma; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 201
Karan Pratap Singh v State of Rajasthan & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 202
Prem Prakash Bidyasar v State of Rajasthan, and other connected matter; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 203
Taimoor v State of Rajasthan; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 204
Anil Prakash Goyal & Ors. v State of Rajasthan & Anr., and other connected matter; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 205
Sonu Ram v State of Rajasthan & Anr.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 206
Vinod Kumar v State of Rajasthan & Anr., and other connected matters; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 207
Saisuda Chuennok v Union of India; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 208
State of Rajasthan & Anr. v Dr. Dinesh Kumar Sharma, and other connected matters; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 209
N v State of Rajasthan & Anr.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 210
Vaibhav v State of Rajasthan; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 211
State of Rajasthan v Rajeev Kumar Rana; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 212
R v State of Rajasthan; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 213
Puranmal v State of Rajasthan & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 214
Judgments of the Month
Title: Smt. Guddi Bai v Raghuveer
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 163
The Rajasthan High Court, while rejecting a maintenance application under Section 125 CrPC, filed by a woman whose marriage was void due to the subsistence of her and her husband's earlier marriage, described the situation as “unfortunate” and expressed sympathy for the petitioner.
The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand highlighted the legal loopholes that defeated the objective of the provision, and suggested other possible remedies available to the petitioner, like seeking compensation under Section 22 of the Domestic Violence Act.
“This Court finds it unfortunate that many women, especially those belonging to the poorer strata of society, are routinely exploited in this manner, and the legal loopholes allow the offending parties to slip away unscathed. In spite of the social justice factor embedded in Section 125 Cr.P.C., the objective of the provision is defeated as it fails to arrest the exploitation which it seeks to curb.”
Title: Jagdish Singh v State of Rajasthan & Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 162
While rejecting a quashing petition in relation to an FIR under the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018 (2018 Act), Rajasthan High Court held that the provision did not require that the concerned public servant was actually in a position to do the official act.
The bench of Justice Pramil Kumar Mathur observed that for the purpose of this offence, it was enough if the public servant accepted the gratification by inducing a belief that s/he would assist the giver with any other public servant, and the giver actually gave the gratification under that belief.
Title: Anil Kumar v State of Rajasthan
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 161
The Rajasthan High Court granted bail to an accused in a POCSO case, taking note of the fact that the prosecutrix was merely four days short of attaining majority at the time of the alleged incident. The Court also considered that, soon after attaining majority, she had approached the court seeking protection from her family and had since been residing with the family of the accused.
Justice Sanjeet Purohit further observed that in her statements, the prosecutrix had unequivocally expressed her desire to marry the accused. The Court also noted her allegation that her family members were attempting to compel her into a marriage against her wishes.
Title: Nishi Mishra & Anr. v State of Rajasthan
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 164
Rajasthan High Court honourably acquitted two sister-in-laws in a cruelty case observing that while granting acquittal the use of terms "benefit of doubt" and "in absence of evidence" by trial court and revisional court was improper especially when prosecution had miserably failed to prove the charges.
The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand It further observed that even though the concepts of “honourably acquittal”, “acquittal of blame”, “fully acquittal”, were unknown to CrPC, an honourable acquittal may be where the court definitively concluded, based on a full-fledged trial and appreciation of evidence, that the accused had not committed the crime.
The Court highlighted that such acquittal was very different from arriving at that finding based on some lacuna in the prosecution case or in the leading of evidence or due to non-availability of credible evidence. In such a case, the accused was not convicted by giving him benefit of doubt.
Belated Allegations Not Raised In Earlier FIR Indicate Abuse Of Process: Rajasthan High Court
Title: Kamlesh Kumar v State of Rajasthan & Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 165
Rajasthan High Court held that non-disclosure of a serious offence within a reasonable time or at a relevant time when an earlier crime was registered against the same accused by the same complainant, would falsify the allegations and render the subsequent complaint/FIR/allegations an abuse of law.
While setting aside an FIR alleging rape against the petitioner, the bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand observed that the FIR was lodged after a delay of more than two months from the date of alleged incident, and that too in the background of an existing property dispute between the concerned family members.
“…impugned FIR No.127/2021 is nothing but a bundle of lies full of fabricated and malicious allegations and under the changed circumstances, where the petitioner was not found guilty in the first FIR No.80/2021 by the Investigating Officer, it would be absurd to allow the prosecution of the petitioner to continue by considering the aforesaid.”
Title: Dr Charan Jeet Singh v State of Rajasthan & Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 166
Rajasthan High Court has held that registration of a second FIR is permissible when it presents rival version's set of facts arising from same circumstances in relation to first FIR but pertaining to a "larger conspiracy" and when probe brings out unknown facts at a later stage.
The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand referred to Supreme Court case of State of Rajasthan v Surendra Singh Rathore and said:
“…when second FIR is in the form of a counter-complaint or presents a rival version of a set of facts, in reference to which an earlier FIR was registered and when the second FIR is arising from the same set of circumstances, relating to a larger conspiracy and when investigation and/or person related to incident brings to the light hitherto unknown facts or circumstances, at a later stage, then registration of the subsequent FIR is permissible.”
Title: Ishita Bhardwaj v/s State of Rajasthan and connected
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 167
Rajasthan High Court quashed an FIR against a woman under sections 312 and 313 IPC, observing that merely sending abortion pills to anyone did not fulfil the basic ingredients of the offence unless such pills were forcefully given to the victim with an intention to cause miscarriage.
The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand also considered the fact that such allegations against the concerned petitioner did not appear in the complaint by the complainant. Rather, these were introduced by the petitioner's husband against whom she had filed a case for cruelty.
“…allegations in both of the FIRs are verbatim same and identical. There is hardly any difference of comma or full stop between both of them. Once the criminal complaint with regard to the same incident and the same offence is not pressed and withdrawn by the victim, then the successive impugned FIR with regard to the same incident and the same offence is legally not sustainable in the eyes of law and the same is liable to be quashed.”
Title: Manish Dotasara v State of Rajasthan & Ors. and other connected petitions
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 168
Rajasthan High Court held that once a scheme was substituted by a new scheme that changed its mode of execution, the State Government cannot be compelled to continue the services of manpower that was being rendered by an outsourcing agency.
The bench of Justice Munnuri Laxman stated that in multiple cases protection was given to the interest of employees working under the manpower agency, but that protection was on the premises that one set of employee could not be replaced with another set merely because of change in agency.
“This Court in number of cases has been protecting the interest of an employees working under the manpower agency to continue such services, even if there was a change in the manpower agency. That protection was given on the premise that a one set of an employee cannot be replaced by another set of employee only on the ground that there is a change of manpower agency.”
Title: Surendra Pal Singh Sahni v State of Rajasthan
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 169
The Rajasthan High Court recently quashed an order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kota, rejecting a 66-year-old man's application for a No Objection Certificate (NOC) to renew his passport.
The bench of Justice Chandra Prakash Shrimali held that preventing a person from travelling abroad by denying their passport renewal merely because of pending criminal cases is a direct violation of the fundamental rights enshrined in Article 21.
The Court highlighted that the impugned order was passed by the Magistrate without proper reasoning or consideration of the relevant legal provisions governing an accused's right to renew his passport. It was held that the order was not in accordance with the law.
Rajasthan High Court Clears Solar Project Near Sambhar Lake, Imposes Safeguards For Migratory Birds
Title: Dinesh Kumawat & Ors. v Union of India & Ors., and other connected petitions
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 170
Rajasthan High Court granted permission for establishment of the 100 MW Solar Power Plant Project, in the Nagaur district, near Sambhar Lake subject to certain safeguards to facilitate the environment of migratory birds, rather than hindering their natural habitat.
The division bench of Acting Chief Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma and Justice Sanjeet Purohit observed that the land in question did not form part of the Sambhar Lake or any notified wetland area. However, at the same time, it was highlighted that it was an important breeding ground for migratory birds.
The Court opined that it was their duty to protect the birds that flocked the area during the winter season. In this light, while underscoring the “precautionary principle”, it was directed that the solar panels shall be installed at a height of atleast 1.5 meters that enabled the migratory birds to nest, lay eggs, and breed beneath them without any obstruction.
Title: Vikas Wadhwa v Punjab and Sind Bank & Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 171
Rajasthan High Court held that mere reference to prior events or general allegations which are not directly determinative of the relief sought in the petition, cannot be construed to mean that a part of cause of action has arisen in the State for the court to have territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate.
The bench of Justice Anand Sharma opined that to deterime territorial jurisdiction, the Court is required to examine the averments made in the writ petition, without entering into the correctness or otherwise of such pleadings. However, such facts must constitute integral, essential or material facts forming part of the cause of action and not merely incidental or ancillary facts.
"A careful reading of the writ petition does not reveal any specific pleading demonstrating that any part of the cause of action, in its material sense, has arisen within the territorial limits of this Court. The petitioner has made general assertions regarding certain events having nexus with a place falling within the jurisdiction of this Court. However, such assertions, even if taken at face value, do not constitute essential or integral facts for conferring territorial jurisdiction to this Court.”
Title: Mohammad Atik & Ors. v State of Rajasthan & Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 172
Rajasthan High Court set aside the bailable warrants against accused in a forgery case, holding that once the investigating agency did not think it was proper to arrest the accused during investigation, issuance of bailable or non-bailable warrants should be done by the Court only where the accused was charged with henious crime or was likely to abscond or tamper with evidence.
The bench of Justice Baljinder Singh Sandhu observed that the term “custody” under Section 170 CrPC (Cases to be sent to Magistrate when evidence is sufficient) does not mean that the accused has to be arrested first and sent to judicial custody. It only meant presentation of the accused before the Court.
To Protect Octogenarian Parents, Rajasthan High Court Upholds Eviction Of Their Senior Citizen Son And Daughter-In-Law
Title: Krishnawtar Nagar & Ors. v Smt. Vimla Devi Nagar
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 173
While underscoring the mandate and object of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and senior Citizens Act 2007, Rajasthan High Court dismissed a petition filed by a senior-citizen couple (petitioner no. 1 & 2) against their eviction from the property of their octogenarian parents (respondents).
The bench of Justice Sameer Jain considered that the respondents were octogenarians, who were allegedly subjected to harassment and threats by the petitioner No. 1 & 2 and the grandson (petitioner no. 3). The Court held that such conduct violated the respondents' right to live with dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
Title: Rohit Nayak & Anr. v Kailash & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 174
While hearing a Public Interest Litigation relating to illegal constructions within the restricted zones of installations of Indian Airforce and Indian Army in Jodhpur, Rajasthan High Court issued directions to the local authorities for corrective measures.
The division bench of Justice Vinit Kumar Mathur and Justice Chandra Shekhar Sharma opined that the petition raised questions of National Importance, and all permissions granted for constructions within the vicinity of the areas of the two organisations had to be in strict accordance with the notifications/guidelines by the Ministry of Defence/Central Government.
In relation to the layout plans already sanctioned by the local authorities, the Court held,
“…if the layout plan has been sanctioned by the local authorities, the construction permission(s) is/are strictly required to be issued after following the mandatory guidelines/instructions of the notifications issued by the Ministry of Defence/Central Government. If the local authorities find that the construction permission(s) have been issued in violation of mandatory guidelines/instructions of the notifications of the Ministry of Defence/Central Government, then such construction permission(s) should be cancelled.”
Title: Akshya v State of Rajasthan
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 175
While granting bail to an accused under NDPS Act, Rajasthan High Court highlighted that the accused was implicated without any recovery from him, solely based on information received from the main accused from whom the narcotics were recovered.
The bench of Justice Ashok Kumar Jain highlighted “failure in the advice mechanism of prosecution before recommending a charge sheet against any person”.
The Court opined that there may be deficiency or insufficiency of evidence to forward any person for trial, and hence the trial court was required to look into all aspects while framing charges.
It was held that in case of any deficiency, Section 273, BNSS, had to be invoked to award compensation to an innocent person for remaining in custody and also facing unnecessary prosecution.
Title: Mohammad Rahil Belim v State of Rajasthan, and other connected petition
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 176
Rajasthan High Court held that cyber crimes are not merely disputes between private individual but affect digital ecosystem and public confidence in electronic transactions.
Hence, quashing such offences solely based on compromise between the parties shall defeat the objective of the legislation enacted to curb cyber crimes.
The bench of Justice Baljinder Singh Sandhu held that such offences were capable of affecting large number of unsuspecting persons who relied on digital platforms and electronic communication for financial and commercial transactions. Hence, the offence was not just a private dispute but entered a realm of public interest.
Title: Islam Khan and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 177
The Rajasthan High Court in a recent decision issued a slew of directions to curb public humiliation of arrestees perpetrated by the police and particularly stressed upon the issue of social media condemnation by posting arrestee photos.
Justice Farjand Ali observed that such conduct by the police amounts to imposing a punishment that is not statutorily prescribed and violates the principle of presumption of innocence.
“The phenomenon colloquially described as a “media trial by police”. Such a practice is not a mere by-product of independent journalistic enthusiasm, but rather a State-engineered narrative, wherein the police machinery, through press conferences, orchestrated disclosures, circulation of photographs, and at times even staged representations of arrest, seeks to project an accused person as culpable even before the due process of law has had an opportunity to unfold. Such conduct, in the view of this Court, amounts to a direct transgression of the foundational principles of criminal jurisprudence, particularly the presumption of innocence, which stands as a bulwark against arbitrary State action…the power to investigate does not encompass the power to declare guilt…The practice of subjecting an accused to public condemnation through media exposure, staged photographs, or other such acts amounts to an extra-legal penalty.”
Finding a need for immediate and strict corrective measures, the Court went to issue the certain directions, including strict adherence to the SOP, ban on public parading, prohibition of social media condemnation, etc.
Title: Rohitashva v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 178
Rajasthan High Court has held that an acquittal is sufficient for considering reinstatement of an official earlier dismissed invoking Rule 19 Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules where only disqualification is conviction, and the authority cannot look into whether the acquittal was honorable or not.
Rule 19 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules provides for a special procedure for taking disciplinary action without conducting a full inquiry. The employer has the authority to impose penalties which are allowable under Rules 16, 17, and 18 of the Rules of 1950 upon conviction on criminal charges by the competent Criminal Court.
The Court highlighted certain situations in which the relevance of honourable or doubtful acquittal could be seen. The Court opined,
“There may be instances of drawing parallel proceedings where the allegations are common in both departmental and criminal proceedings. Part from that the appointing/ disciplinary authority, instead of initiating independent departmental proceedings parallel to criminal proceeding, may also place the employee under suspension and wait for the judgment of the Criminal Court, or may wait for the judgment without suspending the employee or initiating any departmental proceedings.”
Title: Chhoti Devi v State of Rajasthan
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 179
The Rajasthan High Court recently denied bail to a mother-in-law accused along with her son and husband of murdering her daughter-in-law (deceased) by strangulation.
The bench of Justice Baljinder Singh Sandhu rejected the contention raised by the counsel that being a woman, the applicant deserved to be given the benefit of bail as per the provision under Section 480, BNSS.
The Court made a reference to the Supreme Court case of Rekha K.C. v Jyotibhai and Anr. and opined that merely if an accused was a lady, the same was not a reason to grant bail when the alleged offence against the concerned woman were serious in nature.
“Merely because the petitioner is a lady, she cannot be released on bail giving her the benefit of provisos under Section 480 BNSS specially when the offences involved are serious in nature,” the Court said.
Rajasthan High Court Seizes Mobile Phone After Litigant's Driver Found Recording Court Proceedings, Issues Contempt Notice
Title: Kamal Rathore v State of Rajasthan, and other connected matters
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 180
Rajasthan High Court issued show-cause notices to a litigant and his driver involved in recording the Court proceedings using mobile phone, in a covert and unauthorized manner, terming the act as prima facie criminal contempt under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand observed that the actions not only amounted to interference with the administration of justice but also lowered the dignity of the Court.
Title: Shri Jambeshwar Paryavaran And Jeev Raksha Pradesh Sanstha v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 181
While hearing a petition seeking prevention of cutting of Khejri trees for solar projects, Rajasthan High Court observed that humanity's movement towards ecological evolution had left a trail of environmental destruction.
The division bench of Justice Arun Monga and Justice Sandeep Shah stated that maybe it was time for the today's rulers to issue “farmaan” as was done in 1730 AD by the then Maharajas to save the tree and protect the ecological balance.
“The Khejri, a rare desert tree of ecological significance, grows in sparse isolation, barely one tree per half a square kilometer. Yet it is slated for felling. The reason? To make way for solar power generation. The irony is breathtaking, to say the least… This court hopes and trusts that the committee will explore every viable alternative to avoid any further felling of even a single tree and permitting what would be an irreversible loss.”
Number Of Convictions, Acquittals Obtained By Prosecutors Can't Be Sole Basis For Adverse Entries Against Them: Rajasthan High Court
Title: Rajasthan Prosecution Officers Association v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 182
While dismissing challenge to the Annual Appraisal Performance Form (“Form”) of the Prosecution Officers, Rajasthan High Court opined that collection of data regarding the number of convictions and acquittals per se could not be said to be an arbitrary action as long as that data was not being used for recording adverse entries against the officers.
The bench of Justice Munnuri Laxman however held that if the data was used for recording performance simply based on the number of acquittals or convictions, it would violate the principles of fair play.
Title: Ms. Shubhra Panwar v the State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 183
The Rajasthan High Court has held that where the onus to procure the Certificate of Eligibility regarding the nationality of a candidate rests upon the appointing government-department, no adverse action can be initiated against the candidate for not approaching the Ministry of Home Affairs for obtaining the same.
The bench of Justice Nupur Bhati was hearing a quashing petition filed by a government employee, against a Charge Sheet issued against her with the allegations that she had failed to submit a certificate of eligibility regarding her nationality.
The Court further opined, “…in the case of migrants from foreign countries who intend to settle permanently in India, their eligibility in respect of nationality, age and allied concessions is not rigidly governed by general rule, but by such executive instructions as the State Government may issue, which are broadly consistent, with necessary modifications, with the policy laid down by the Union of India.”
Title: United India Insurance Company Limited v Smt. Mamta Sharma & Ors, and other connected petitions
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 184
The Rajasthan High Court has made it clear that when determining the age of a deceased, the date of birth mentioned in his/her PAN Card, Driving License will prevail over the age determined through post-mortem.
The observation was made by Justice Sandeep Taneja while dealing with appeals against award granted by Motor Accident Tribunal.
After hearing the contentions, the Court highlighted that it was established that the accident occurred due to the negligence and rash driving of the car's driver. Further, it was also considered established that the truck driver was also negligent and responsible for the accident.
“…when a person dies or is injured as a result of negligence on the part of two or more wrong doers and not because of the negligence of the deceased / injured, then it will be a case of composite negligence of those wrong-doers and in that case, each wrong doer, will be jointly and severally liable to the claimants for payment of the damages and the claimants have the choice of proceedings against all or any of them.”
Title: L v P
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 185
The Rajasthan High Court has held that it is not uncommon for spouses employed in government services to reside at different places due to their postings and thus, mere fact of separate residence owing to such exigencies cannot by itself constitute 'desertion' to become a ground for divorce.
Furthermore, the division bench of Justice Arun Monga and Justice Sandeep Shah observed that not every quarrel, harsh word, or domestic disagreement rose to the level of cruelty.
It was opined that cruelty, as a ground of divorce, had to be of such nature and degree that caused reasonable apprehension in the mind of the aggrieved that it would be harmful or injurious to continue living with the other party.
Title: L v P
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 185
The Rajasthan High Court has held that customary “Nata Marriage” cannot be accorded legal recognition as a valid defense to the charge of bigamy, since doing so shall render the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (“the Act”), meaningless, absurd and virtually repealed owing to judicial tolerance of the custom.
For context, Nata Marriage was a custom prevalent in certain communities of Rajasthan where a person enters into second matrimonial union without legally dissolving the first marriage.
The division bench of Justice Arun Monga and Justice Sandeep Shah opined that this custom disproportionately harms women and results in vulnerability of both the sets of women.
“A Court of law is not an instrument available to a wrongdoer to consecrate his wrong. The appellant, having made his choice in 1997 with open eyes and without legal authority, must bear its consequences, and those consequences cannot, in law or in conscience, be visited upon the respondent.”
Title: Dr. Ram Gopal Sharma v State of Rajasthan & Ors., and other connected matters
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 186
Rajasthan High Court imposed a personal cost of Rs. 50,000 on the Director of the Directorate Of Ayurved, Department Of Ayurved And Bhartuya Chikitsa of the State Government for non-adherence of court orders halting recovery of pension benefits.
The bench of Justice Ravi Chirania was hearing a petition wherein the petitioner had challenged the order of the respondent-Director directing initiation of recovery of pension benefits of the petitioner.
It was the case of the petitioner that an earlier petition was filed by him against such an order which was allowed, and special appeal before the division bench was dismissed. Furthermore, in an identical matter, the SLP filed by the respondent-department was sub-judice in the Supreme Court, wherein the apex court had said that "in case any amount has already been paid to the respondent, the same shall not be recovered during pendency of the petition".
'Atta-Satta' Marriages Morally & Legally Bankrupt, Girl Child Made Bargaining Instrument : Rajasthan High Court
Title: KB v SK
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 187
While hearing petition against a dismissed divorce application, Rajasthan High Court made certain observations about the prevalent practice of “Atta Satta” marriage, and opined that in a constitutional democracy, such practices deserved unequivocal social and legal repudiation.
The division bench of Justice Arun Monga and Justice Sunil Beniwal held that aata-satta involving a minor was not a benign cultural practice, but it commodified children, suppressed consent, entrenched patriarchy and gave way to future conflict.
“Communities cannot invoke custom to override statute. No social practice can legitimize what the law prohibits and condemns.”
While underscoring the prohibition of child marriages in India, the Court stated that when marriages were arranged as a reciprocal exchange between families, involving minors, custom became an oppressive social mechanism where children, particularly girls, were used a matrimonial barter and bargaining instruments between families.
It was further opined that what was more tragic about this practice was that instead of each marriage standing on its own footing, the fate of both the marriages were tied to one another. If one marriage broke down, retaliation followed in other household as well.
The Court held that such structure was fundamentally unjust.
Title: KB v SK
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 187
The Rajasthan High Court has observed that many women continue to remain in difficult marriages out of economic dependence, social pressure, children, lack of shelter, fear of stigma or absence of parental support. Thus, mere fact that spouses reside together for some years does not automatically negate allegations of cruelty.
The division bench of Justice Arun Monga and Justice Sunil Beniwal observed that shared physical resident does not equate to harmonious cohabitation, rather at times, it represents a period of forced endurance under adverse conditions.
“A wife staying because she has “nowhere else to go” cannot be treated as proof that no cruelty existed. Endurance is often mistaken for consent and/or condonation.”
“Cruelty, particularly mental cruelty, is not confined to dramatic physical acts; it encompasses all forms of conduct, subtle or overt, which make continued cohabitation unbearable. The learned Family court has given undue weight to the fact of co-residence, rather appears to have maximized its import against the appellant, while minimizing the psychological damage inflicted upon the appellant by the refusal of her basic rights within the matrimonial home.”
No Rape Case Made Out Against Legally Wedded Husband When Wife Was Major At Time Of Marriage: Rajasthan High Court
Title: Gajendra Mourya v State of Rajasthan & Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 188
The Rajasthan High Court has quashed a rape FIR filed against a man by his wife, opining that in light of the definition of rape under Section 375, IPC and the Supreme Court ruling in Navtej Singh Johar v Union of India, the aspect of consent within marriage was rendered legally immaterial for prosecution of offences like rape.
The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand clarified that since the petitioner was the legally wedded husband of the victim, offence of rape was not made out owing to the exception 2 under Section 375, IPC.
“Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case and looking to the fact that the prosecutrix is a major lady of the age of above 18 years at the time of marriage and she herself has solemnized marriage with the petitioner on 12.04.2021, lodging of the impugned F.I.R. on subsequent date amounts to abuse of process of law. Hence, the entire proceedings arising out of the impugned F.I.R. stand quashed and set-aside.”
Title: Prashant Kaushik & Ors. v State of Rajasthan & Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 189
The Rajasthan High Court has held that a Magistrate cannot take cognizance of an offence against public servants or direct registration of FIR under Section 175 BNSS without first following the safeguards provided under Section 223 BNSS.
The bench of Justice Farjand Ali considered the fact that the complaint against the public servants was registered by a person against whom an FIR was registered at the same police station, and charge sheet was filed by the police. Further, the investigating officer, in the present matter had submitted a negative final report opining a retaliatory motive behind the FIR.
The Court observed that due to the intertwined nature of allegations and the surrounding factual complexities, it becomes imperative to adopt a cautious and balanced approach, ensuring that while the grievance of the complainant is not prematurely discarded, adequate protection is also afforded to public servants against vexatious or retaliatory prosecution.
Title: Devesh Sharma v State of Rajasthan & Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 190
The Rajasthan High Court has held that once Magistrate Court passes an order on a Negative Final Report, it becomes functus officio and cannot pass a second order on a protest petition later on.
The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand held:
"...whenever a Final Report (FR) Negative is submitted by the police in the Court, the Magistrate has to issue notice to the complainant informant. After receipt of the notice if the complainant appears and does not file a protest petition, then the Magistrate can hear the arguments of both sides and he would either accept the FR if no case is found to be made out or reject the FR and take cognizance against the accused if prima facie any case is made out against him.”
Title: Hari Ram v Chunni Devi
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 191
The Rajasthan High Court has held that adoption cannot be recognized in the eye of law merely based on the strength of an executed document. It opined that the ceremony of actual giving and taking of the child concerned is a mandatory feature under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 and the same is not a mere formality.
The bench of Justice Farjand Ali was hearing challenge against a decree and order of the appellate court, that had ruled the adoption deed in question to be invalid and unenforceable in law.
Title: Lal Singh Chouhan v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 192
The Rajasthan High Court has set aside the suspension of a government teacher over his social media comments against a sitting Minister.
The bench of Justice Farjand Ali held that the suspension order was silent on the statutory source of power under which the petitioner was suspended. It opined that executive displeasure or perceived embarrassment could not substitute statutory authorization.
The Court observed that at the maximum, the allegations might have attracted departmental inquiry, as per law.
“Merely because allegations are levelled that the image of a Minister has been sought to be tarnished does not bestow unbridled authority upon administrative officers to invoke suspension according to their subjective satisfaction. In a constitutional framework governed by legal discipline, authorities cannot assume unto themselves powers not vested by law… Administrative convenience or subjective perception cannot supplant mandatory legal requirements.”
Man Booked For Sharing Sensitive Military Info With Pakistan Gets Bail From Rajasthan High Court Over Non-Supply Of Grounds Of Arrest
Title: Jhabra Ram v State of Rajasthan
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 193
The Rajasthan High Court has granted bail to a man booked over 'grave allegations' of transmitting strategic and sensitive information about military establishments to Pakistani handlers, considering that the investigating agencies failed to fulfill the mandatory requirement of communicating the grounds of arrest in writing.
Stating that it was 'left with no other option' than to grant bail despite such grave allegations, bench of Justice Praveer Bhatnagar emphasized that strict adherence to the constitutional and statutory safeguards assumes even greater significance in cases involving potential serious ramifications on national security and sovereignty of the nation.
The Court further opined that the duty to ensure compliance with constitutional and statutory safeguards governing arrest, was not only upon the investigating officer effecting the arrest, but also upon the prosecuting agency and the Magistrate supervising the remand proceedings.
Title: LRs of Mahaveer Singh & Ors. v Narendra Singh & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 194
The Rajasthan High Court has held that while exercising jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC, the High Court is not expected to function as a 'third court of facts' for undertaking fresh factual inquiry or reassessing evidence, merely because another view was possible from the record.
The bench of Justice Farjand Ali observed that the findings of fact by the courts below carried a presumption of correctness and sanctity, that could be interfered with only when such findings were demonstrated to be patently perverse, manifestly illegally or resulting in grave miscarriage of justice.
“The jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC is intended to preserve legal uniformity and correct substantial errors of law, and not to reopen factual controversies conclusively adjudicated by the courts below.”
Title: Rakesh Sharma v Manju Devi & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 195
The Rajasthan High Court has held that directing payment of maintenance from the date of application, after inordinate delay in conclusion of proceedings, in certain cases can result in an excessively onerous financial burden on the husband, especially upon a salaried person or someone having limited means.
While underscoring the true objective of maintenance as prevention of immediate destitution, the bench of Justice Farjand Ali observed that delays in maintenance proceedings could not be attributed solely onto the parties. Hence, court cannot impose responsibility of such delay on either of the parties.
In this light, the Court held that the ends of justice would be met if maintenance was directed to be paid from the date of order instead of from the date of filing of application.
Title: Rakesh Sharma v Manju Devi & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 195
The Rajasthan High Court has held that when allegations of cruelty or harassment are matters of separate criminal proceedings, which are sub-judice, the court exercising jurisdiction under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violent Act, 2005 (“DV Act”), ought not to grant compensation founded upon such disputed allegations.
While setting aside such compensation, the bench of Justice Farjand Ali opined that the jurisdiction under the DV Act was remedial and protective in nature, which could not be stretched to convert the proceedings into a substitute for criminal adjudication.
“Any categorical observation or grant of compensation founded upon disputed allegations, which are yet to be adjudicated in criminal proceedings, would virtually amount to pre-judging the controversy and may seriously prejudice the rights of either side in the pending prosecution.”
Title: Gopiram & Ors. v the Ajmer Vodyut Vitran Nigam Ltd.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 196
The Rajasthan High Court has held that a man electrocuted while trying to save his belongings from a fire caused by a snapped live electric wire could not be blamed for negligence, observing that such conduct was a “natural human response in an emergent situation.”
Enhancing compensation from ₹1.25 lakh to ₹3 lakh in the fatal electrocution case, Justice Farjand Ali said the law does not expect a person to remain a “passive spectator” when his dwelling is engulfed in flames.
The bench added that compensation “cannot be symbolic” and must have a restorative character, and thus enhanced the compensation from ₹1.25 lakh to ₹3 lakh.
It observed that the jurisprudence of compensation had moved beyond the rigid formulas, and now the courts were expected to adopt a holistic and liberal interpretation.
Title: Nurul Islam & Anr. v State of Rajasthan
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 197
The Rajasthan High Court has granted bail to Bangladeshi citizens, accused in the case of illegal kidney transplantation and human trafficking, noting that the foreign nationals were approvers on whose statements the principal accused persons were arrested and they too are entitled to fundamental right of speedy trial under Article 21.
The court further said that the foreign nationals cannot be kept in custody until termination of trial thereby "putting them in the circumstances worse than the principal accused persons" who have already been granted bail.
The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand observed that the petitioners were in prison since April 2024, and their statements were already recorded in the trial court. It was opined that they could not be put in a position worse than that of the principal accused persons.
The Rajasthan High Court has rejected a petition challenging the constitutional validity of the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly (Officers and Members Salary, Emoluments, and Pension) Act, 1956 (“Act”), insofar as it provides pensionary benefits to former Members of the Legislative Assembly (“MLAs”).
The division bench of Justice Pushpendra Singh Bhati and Justice Vinit Kumar Mathur observed that petitioner's interpretation of reading an implied prohibition against grant of pension to former legislators, in the Constitution, was not correct. Such prohibition could not be inferred in the absence of any express constitutional limitation.
“Once the competence of Parliament to enact laws providing pensionary benefits to Members of Parliament has been recognized, and the State Legislature derives legislative competence in relation to “State pensions” under Entry 42 of List II read with Article 246(3) of the Constitution of India, the challenge raised to the impugned enactment cannot be sustained merely on the ground that Article 195 expressly refers only to “salaries and allowances”.
Title: Ramji Lal Saini v the State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 199
The Rajasthan High Court has held that the use of a 'Gair Mumkin Nala' (natural drainage and water flow channel) cannot be altered for any non-conforming purposes, like construction of road or a crematorium, merely on the ground that the utilisation was for a public purpose.
While directing the State to remove any road, crematorium structure, or encroachments from the concerned land, the division bench of Dr. Justice Pushpendra Singh Bhati and Justice Vinit Kumar Mathur observed that the State had failed to discharge its statutory and constitutional obligations towards preservation of natural water channels.
“…unless natural water bodies and water channels are zealously protected and preserved, the right to a dignified and sustainable life of the common citizen stands seriously imperilled…Though increasing urbanisation, developmental expansion and demographic pressures may give rise to competing land-use demands, such considerations cannot legitimise actions which are contrary to law and destructive of ecological balance.”
Title: State of Rajasthan v Smt. Seems Jakhar
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 200
The Rajasthan High Court has dismissed the bail cancellation application filed by the State against a woman SHO, accused under NDPS, opining that once the bail was granted, it could not be cancelled in a mechanical manner or merely because the offence was serious.
After hearing the contentions, the bench of Justice Ashok Kumar Jain referred to the Supreme Court case of Abhimanyu Etc. v State of Kerala, to hold that bail once granted could be cancelled only if any of the bail conditions were violated, or the accused misused liberty, or tampered with evidence, or influenced the witnesses.
Title: Bhawani Singh Shekhawat v Fanishwar Sharma
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 201
The Rajasthan High Court has held that mere delay in making an amendment application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC is not enough by itself to refuse such an amendment, since the delay could be compensated in terms of money.
The bench of Justice Maneesh Sharma highlighted that the purpose and object of Order 6, Rule 17, CPC was to allow either party to alter and amend the pleadings in a manner that was just. It was opined that such amendment had to be allowed if the same was required for proper and effective adjudication of the matter, and to avoid multiplicity of judicial proceedings.
Title: Karan Pratap Singh v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 202
The Rajasthan High Court has held that date of accident has no relevance while considering application for compassionate appointment under Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of Dependents of Permanent Total Disabled Government Servants Rules, 2023, if on the date of enforcement of the Rules, the condition of permanent total disability existed.
The bench of Justice Anand Sharma observed that the Rule did not prohibit considering of such cases where the accident that led to the permanent total disability occurred prior to the date of enforcement of such Rules.
“Court finds that the petitioner cannot be discriminated by the respondents by raising an artificial grounds which is not available under the Rules of 2023. The Rules nowhere specifically prohibits consideration of such cases where accident has taken place prior to date of enforcement of such Rules.”
Title: Prem Prakash Bidyasar v State of Rajasthan, and other connected matter
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 203
The Rajasthan High Court held that in the current era of rapid pace, where criminals were adopting the latest and advanced techniques to commit crimes, the investigation mechanism of the police has to be strengthened with modern and well-equipped Investigation Labs that have adequate scientific facilities.
The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand highlighted the unavailability of such labs in Rajasthan and the resulting reliance of the State Police on reports and analysis from labs situated in other states. It was opined that this causes unnecessary delays, thereby violating the right of fair investigation and speedy trial.
Title: Taimoor v State of Rajasthan
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 204
The Rajasthan High Court has made it clear that a superior Police officer has the authority to direct further investigation and permission for conducting further investigation is not required to be obtained from the Court, if the original charge-sheet is not submitted.
The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand however clarified that after submission of the charge-sheet, such order of conducting further investigation can be passed only by the concerned Court.
Title: Anil Prakash Goyal & Ors. v State of Rajasthan & Anr., and other connected matter
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 205
The Rajasthan High Court has held that even though multiple remedies might exist with a litigant, once selection was made regarding the remedy to be pursued, that operated as a bar on simultaneous initiation of a parallel remedy.
The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand opined that the aggrieved party could not be allowed to “sail in two boats” by availing parallel remedies for common grievance. It was stated that such practice had to be deprecated.
“Once a party chooses to pursue one remedy (eg. revision), he/she is bound by it and cannot switch over to another. Essentially a litigant must choose his/her path and he/she cannot be allowed to “hedge his bets” by way of pursuing two parallel remedies simultaneously for espousing the same cause.”
The Court also highlighted the even otherwise, when the court framed charges against the accused, the order of cognizance ceased to have independent existence. Hence, no separate grievance in relation to the cognizance could be entertained post framing of charges.
Title: Sonu Ram v State of Rajasthan & Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 206
The Rajasthan High Court has upheld a trial court order releasing a murder accused, who was arrested by the police after 30 years of absconding. The release was ordered based on the medical report that certified that the accused was suffering from dementia, and thus was not having cognitive ability to understand or participate in the court proceedings.
The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand rejected the argument of the complainant that the application for such release was filed at a pre-mature stage and could be filed only after the trial commenced.
The Court observed that once the fact of accused being mentally unfit for the court proceedings was established, waiting for the trial to reach the stage of framing of charges would be merely an “empty formality”.
Reservation Can't Justify “Complete Abandonment Of Merit”: Rajasthan HC Quashes Selection Of 1200+ Class-IV Candidates With Near-Zero Marks
Title: Vinod Kumar v State of Rajasthan & Anr., and other connected matters
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 207
The Rajasthan High Court has quashed the selection list to the extent of around 1200 candidates of Class IV government employees, mostly within the reserved category, who were selected despite having achieved zero or virtually zero marks in the written examination.
State has been directed to undertake fresh exercise of preparation of merit list to this extent.
The bench of Justice Anand Sharma observed that public employment was not charity and every public post, however small it might be, carried public duties and responsibilities. It was held that the state could not assume that for Class-IV posts, no minimum merit or competence was required.
Title: Saisuda Chuennok v Union of India
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 208
The Rajasthan High Court has directed the release of a Thai national's passport, accused of being a habitual gold-smuggler, holding that denial of such permission would violate her fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution.
The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand further observed that there were sufficient statutory safeguards to address the apprehension of the accused person absconding to her mother-land, in form of the Immigration and Foreigners Order, 2025.
"The protection under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which guarantees the right of life and personal liberty, extends to all persons and this right is not confined to the Indian Citizens alone and it is available to the Foreign Nationals as well. The Right to Life with Dignity guaranteed under Article 21 is available to all human beings, including foreigners," it observed.
Title: State of Rajasthan & Anr. v Dr. Dinesh Kumar Sharma, and other connected matters
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 209
Rajasthan High Court set aside the order that directed the State to step up the pay of those Medical Officers who had not opted for Non-Practicing Allowance (NPA), to ensure their pay parity with their juniors who had opted for the NPA.
Justice Anand Sharma observed that Rajasthan Civil Services (Revised Pay Scale) Rules recognized two separate classes of medical officers, with and without NPA, for pay fixation. Once the distinction was statutorily recognized, it could not be pleaded that both categories were similarly situated for the purpose of revision of pay.
“…mere seniority does not guarantee identical pay where difference arises due to operation of statutory rules, grant of additional allowances, special incentives or exercise of options by employees themselves. The higher pay being drawn by juniors in the present case is not on account of arbitrary action of the State but due to a lawful benefit available only to those doctors who had opted for NPA.”
'Filing Indecent Photos Invades Her Privacy': Rajasthan HC Issues Guidelines To Protect Sexual Offence Victim's Identity In Court Filings
Title: N v State of Rajasthan & Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 210
Taking a serious note of the practice of annexing "obscene" photographs, videos of parties in pleas concerning sexual offence cases thereby disclosing the prosecutrix/survivor's identity, the Rajasthan High Court issued a slew of directions for the high court Registry and the State's trial courts on filing of such material.
The Court highlighted the adverse implications on the woman involved after her identify was revealed owing to such practice.
While underscoring gross violation of Article 21, the bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand laid down a “mechanism” to be followed by the Registry and the Trial Courts, where such obscene photos/videos were placed on record by the accused/police/any other party to the litigation.
Title: Vaibhav v State of Rajasthan
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 211
The Rajasthan High Court has set aside the condition of furnishing sureties imposed on an accused, who was granted bail but was not released, since he was not in a position to furnish the sureties.
The Court opined that poverty should not violate accused person's right to life and liberty under Article 21.
The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand observed that no accused person could be incarcerated for an indefinite period of time, only on the sole ground that he was not in a position to arrange for sureties for being released on bail.
Title: State of Rajasthan v Rajeev Kumar Rana
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 212
Rajasthan High Court cancelled the default bail granted under Section 167 (2) CrPC, to one of the co-accused, Rajeev Kumar Rana, under IPC, Prize Chits and Money Circulation Scheme (Banning) Act, and IT Act (2000), in an alleged Rs. 9238 Crores Loan scam case.
The bench of Justice Ashok Kumar Jain observed that merely recording the fact that the investigation was incomplete was not sufficient to grant bail. Instead, the trial court was required to apply its mind on what are the counts on which the investigation was pending, and whether the charger sheet/documents submitted by the police were sufficient to proceed.
Title: R v State of Rajasthan
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 213
While granting bail to a POCSO accused, Rajasthan High Court imposed a unique condition that bars him from using all kinds of social media platforms for 1 (one) year, for ensuring safety of the victim.
The bench of Justice Ashok Kumar Jain observed that if the accused was found using social media under his own name or any other fictitious name, during this period, the bail order shall be recalled.
Title: Puranmal v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 214
The Rajasthan High Court has taken serious note of police authorities' alleged conduct of shaving an accused's head and forcefully making him parade in a crowded market-place in woman's clothes.
The bench of Justice Farjand Ali opined the incident to be such that struck at the very core of human dignity and constitutional morality, and stated that the petitioner had the option of instituting proceedings for damages, compensation or personal injury.