NOMINAL INDEX [Citations 300 - 314]Surendra Singh v State of Rajasthan; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 300Alok Gupta v State of Rajasthan and Ors.Aasif Ali v Municipal Corporation & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 303Smt. Swarna Kalra & Anr. v State of Rajasthan & Anr., and other connected petitions; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 304Prem Prakash Bidyasar v State of Rajasthan, and other connected...
NOMINAL INDEX [Citations 300 - 314]
Surendra Singh v State of Rajasthan; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 300
Alok Gupta v State of Rajasthan and Ors.
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
Prem Prakash Bidyasar v State of Rajasthan, and other connected petitions
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
Shankar Ram v State of Rajasthan; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 314
Order/Judgments of the Week
Police Official's Bonafide Failure To Produce Case Diary Not Offence, Else There Will Be 'Flood' Of Complaints: Rajasthan High Court
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: Alok Gupta v State of Rajasthan and Ors.
The Rajasthan High Court has directed the Jaipur Development Authority (JDA) to explain why cement concrete drain channels have not been constructed along stretches of the Dravyavati River in Jaipur despite recommendations made in a report by the National Environmental Engineering Research Institute (NEERI), Nagpur.
The Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma and Justice Bhuwan Goyal was hearing a public interest litigation (PIL) originally filed in 2024 seeking directions to the authorities to construct cement concrete-lined drain channels and provide sewage connections to prevent water and air pollution in Jaipur's Ambabari area.
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: Prem Prakash Bidyasar v State of Rajasthan, and other connected petitions
The Rajasthan High Court has sought a response from the State Finance Department on the proposal to separate the police investigation and law and order wings, while monitoring the implementation of police reforms aimed at ensuring speedy and effective criminal investigations.
Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand directed that the Principal Secretary, Finance Department, be impleaded as a party and submit a report on the steps taken regarding the proposal forwarded by the Police Headquarters and the Home Department.
The Court also underscored the need to strengthen Rajasthan's forensic infrastructure, observing that the absence of well-equipped investigation laboratories in the State compels police to rely on facilities in other States, resulting in delays in investigations.
“The State is under constitutional obligation to provide adequate infrastructure for fair and speedy investigation as the delay in investigation, due to lack of adequate infrastructure for investigation, violates the right of fair investigation and speedy trial.”
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."
Jaipur Rural 2024 LS Poll Plea | High Court Refuses To Drop Election Authorities As Respondents Over Conflicting Postal Ballot Figures
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.
Title: Shankar Ram v State of Rajasthan
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 314
The Rajasthan High Court has observed that the Rajasthan Director General of Police (DGP) should consider imparting extensive legal training to investigating officers handling POCSO cases and matters relating to juveniles, after finding that the statutory procedure for age determination had not been followed in a case before it.
The Bench of Justice Ashok Kumar Jain made the observation while granting bail in a POCSO case, after it found that contrary to the procedure prescribed under law, the opinion regarding the victim's age had been given by a Medical Officer of a Community Health Centre (CSC) instead of a Medical Board.