LiveLaw Rajasthan High Court Weekly Round-Up: October 5 - October 11, 2026
NOMINAL INDEX [Citations 414 - 429]Mahesh Kumar Gupta & Ors. v State of Rajasthan; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 414Muslim Khan v National Investigation Agency, and other connected appeals; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 415Babita & Anr. v Shankar Singh & Ors; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 416Bheru Lal v Union of India; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 417Bajrang Kumar v State of Rajasthan & Anr.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 418R v...
NOMINAL INDEX [Citations 414 - 429]
Mahesh Kumar Gupta & Ors. v State of Rajasthan; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 414
Muslim Khan v National Investigation Agency, and other connected appeals; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 415
Babita & Anr. v Shankar Singh & Ors; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 416
Bheru Lal v Union of India; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 417
Bajrang Kumar v State of Rajasthan & Anr.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 418
R v S; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 419
Sonu Gurjar v State of Rajasthan & Anr; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 420
Union of India & Ors. v Sunil Kumar, and other connected appeals; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 421
Asharam alias Ashumal v State of Rajasthan; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 422
Shakuntala Devi Sharma v State of Rajasthan & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 423
Rahul Agrawal v UCO Bank; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 424
Iftkharuddin Son Of Jamaluddin & Ors. v State of Rajasthan & Ors; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 425
A.L.D Infratech Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v Baljeet Singh, and other connected petitions; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 426
Dr. Nitin Jhalani v Director, Rajasthan Medical Education Society, Jaipur, and ors; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 427
Govind v State of Rajasthan & Anr.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 428
Santosh v State of Rajasthan & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 429
Suo Moto - In Re: Global Identity of the Pink City v the State of Rajasthan
Order/Judgments of the Week
Title : Mahesh Kumar Gupta & Ors. v State of Rajasthan
CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 414
The Rajasthan High Court has allowed a couple, facing criminal charges, to travel abroad to be with their son, who is scheduled to undergo surgery in the United States, holding that hospitalisation could not be regarded as a prerequisite for a parent to attend to an ailing child.
Justice Farjand Ali further held that the concern and anxiety of parents for their child's well-being could not be measured by the nature of medical advice or made dependent upon the child's admission in a hospital.
The Court also observed that pendency of an investigation, by itself, could not be treated as an absolute impediment to an accused person's temporary foreign travel where the investigation could proceed independently.
Title : Muslim Khan v National Investigation Agency, and other connected appeals
CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 415
The Rajasthan High Court has upheld the denial of bail to five accused in the 2022 beheading case of Udaipur tailor Kanhaiya Lal.
The division bench of Chief Justice Sanjay K Agrawal and Justice Sameer Jain rejected the appeals filed against the orders of the special NIA Court, whereby the bail applications of the appellants were dismissed.
It observed that the terror created by the offence was not merely an assault on physical body, but it struck the psychological sovereignty of the country since its object was not to commit an offence but to assassinate peace by replacing Rule of Law with Rule of Fear.
“The gavel strikes, not merely to conclude a hearing, but to echo the unyielding resolve of a sovereign Republic…The preambles of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 are not mere statutory introductions; they are the legislative declarations of a State fighting for its self-preservation…The law must possess th teeth to bite those who attempt to devour the nation's harmony.”
Title : Babita & Anr. v Shankar Singh & Ors
CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 416
The Rajasthan High Court has held that employment-related allowances forming part of a deceased employee's regular earnings must be taken into account while assessing his income for computation of motor accident compensation, and cannot be excluded merely because they are described as allowances.
The bench of Justice Sanjeet Purohit observed that the assessment of income cannot be confined to the basic salary reflected in a salary certificate where the evidence establishes that the employee was regularly receiving additional monetary benefits as part of his service conditions.
The Court accordingly included the deceased's ₹2,000 monthly telephone and petrol allowances while assessing his monthly income at ₹6,800, and enhanced the compensation from ₹6,15,500 to ₹13,18,650.
Title : Bheru Lal v Union of India
CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 417
While discharging a man from an NDPS case, the Rajasthan High Court observed that a bare assertion that he had “cooperated” with persons allegedly involved in drug trafficking, without disclosing the nature, manner or occasion of such cooperation, could not by itself attract Section 29 of the NDPS Act, which deals with abetment and criminal conspiracy.
The bench of Justice Farjand Ali held that Section 29 was not attracted merely on account of an association, relationship or acquaintance with a person allegedly involved in an NDPS offence. The prosecution must place material indicating, at least prima facie, the nature of the alleged assistance, the act constituting such assistance, or circumstances from which participation in a criminal conspiracy could reasonably be inferred.
The Court further observed that the allegation that the petitioner had “cooperated” with the principal accused was conspicuously bereft of particulars, as the prosecution had not attributed any specific transaction, date, place, quantity, vehicle, financial dealing, communication or other overt act to him.
Title : Bajrang Kumar v State of Rajasthan & Anr.
CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 418
The Rajasthan High Court has held that a plea under Section 91 CrPC for production of documents cannot be rejected by pre-judging their contents or evidentiary value, particularly where the documents have a reasonable nexus with a material issue in the trial.
The bench of Justice Farjand Ali observed that while the power under Section 91 CrPC must be exercised with due circumspection, it cannot be construed so restrictively as to defeat the provision's purpose. At the stage of deciding whether a document should be produced, the Court is required to examine whether it has a reasonable and discernible connection with a material fact, rather than assess its ultimate evidentiary worth.
The Court further held that where a document is capable of materially assisting the defence and its production is warranted in the facts of the case, such an opportunity cannot be denied on the basis of conjecture or assumption regarding what the document may or may not contain.
Title : R v S
CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 419
Rajasthan High Court denied granting custody of a 7 year old child to his father, in the background of the fact that the boy was living with his maternal grandparents since his birth, owing to which it was observed that the sudden and abrupt shift would definitely result in mental disturbance which won't be in the child's interest.
At the same time, the division bench of Justice Munnuri Laxman and Justice Sangeeta Sharma allowed visitation and temporary custody rights to the respondent-father in a staged manner, while observing that the father had every right to create an atmosphere such that later, the child could be influenced to shift the custody.
“Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the child is not willing to go with the father even for temporary custody which cannot be accepted. At the initial stage, the child may not go abruptly, but during the course of development of family bonding, the child may show the inclination to join the father. This can only happen when an atmosphere is created to develop the bonding between the father and the son.”
Title : Sonu Gurjar v State of Rajasthan & Anr
CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 420
While hearing a bail application in a POCSO case, Rajasthan High Court observed that despite there being detailed guidelines, the manner of service regarding the intimation of bail application to the parents/guardians of the victim, continued to be improper, reflecting "lethargic attitude" of the authorities.
The bench of Justice Sandeep Shah opined that due to non-sending of information to the parents/guardians immediately after filing of the bail application or due to improper service, there was a delay in adjudication of such bail application which affected the personal liberty of the accused.
The Court thus directed the Director General of Police, Rajasthan; Principle Secretary, Department of Law and Legal Affairs, and the Member Secretary, RSLA, to take note of the situation, and ensure issuance of guidelines by all the police stations, public prosecutors, and other stakeholders throughout Rajasthan to follow the prescribed guidelines.
Title : Union of India & Ors. v Sunil Kumar, and other connected appeals
CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 421
The Rajasthan High Court has held that it has the territorial jurisdiction in matters relating to a recruitment process which was initiated for positions across India, and was conducted in various stages across the country, if substantive stages were also conducted in Rajasthan.
The division bench of Chief Justice Sanjay K. Agarwal and Justice Inderjeet Singh further opined that apart from the fact that a part of the cause of action arose in Rajasthan, the territorial jurisdiction was also affirmed by the fact that Rajasthan High Court was the convenient and appropriate forum for the petitioners, being residents here.
“…the petitioners are Rajasthan based unemployed youths, who participated in the recruitment process from Rajasthan and whose substantive recruitment stages were also conducted in Rajasthan and requiring them to pursue their constitutional remedy before a distant High Court would cause avoidable hardship and expense.”
Rajasthan High Court Directs State To Comply With Asaram's 20-Day Parole Order
Title : Asharam alias Ashumal v State of Rajasthan
CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 422
The Rajasthan High Court has directed the State to comply with its order dated August 3 by which rape-convict, Asaram, was granted a 20-day parole, opining that rejection of his application for emergent parole by the Gujarat High Court had no adverse consequences on State's obligations to comply with the order of this Court.
The division bench of Dr. Justice Nupur Bhati and Justice Sanjeet Purohit was hearing an application seeking directions to the State to comply with the order that granted parole to the convict.
Title : Shakuntala Devi Sharma v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 423
The Rajasthan High Court has imposed a cost of Rs. 10,000 on the State government, for failing to correct the name of an employee in the service records owing to their "impersonal and irresponsible" approach, and pushing her towards unnecessary litigation.
“This Court cannot remain a mute spectator to such harassment. The Courts are already overburdened with genuine lis. If the State and its instrumentalities compel their own employees to approach the Court for such petty, genuine and admitted corrections, which could have been done at the administrative level within a week, it amounts to gross abuse of process and creation of unnecessary litigation.”
The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand observed that when the employee had written her correct name in the application form, and incorrect name in the service records was due to the State's clerical error, it was State's bounden duty as a Model Employer to correct it. Inaction in this regard was not merely a negligence but culpable inaction.
Title : Rahul Agrawal v UCO Bank
CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 424
The Rajasthan High Court has set aside the order by UCO Bank wherein the caregiver of a Thalassemia patient was transferred 1,000 kms away without reasonable consideration and through mechanical application of the transfer policy.
Remarking that the transfer order was "inhumane and violative of Article 21 of the Constitution", the bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand observed:
"Transferring a care-giver of a person suffering from Thalassemia, who requires blood transfusion on every 15-20 days, to a place 1000 KMs away, where no such facility or family support is available, without any reasonable consideration, is not only arbitrary but also inhumane and violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which includes right to health and right to live with dignity of both the disabled dependent and the petitioner".
Title : Iftkharuddin Son Of Jamaluddin & Ors. v State of Rajasthan & Ors
CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 425
The Rajasthan High Court has upheld the punishment of withholding 10% of the pension payable to three retired police officials for their lifetime, after finding them guilty of grave negligence in discharging their duties during a law-and-order situation that resulted in the death of a Sub-Inspector.
Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand held that the disciplinary proceedings could continue after the officials' retirement since the charge-sheet had been served on them while they were still in service. The Court also found no error in the disciplinary authority's decision to impose the pension cut.
Title : A.L.D Infratech Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v Baljeet Singh, and other connected petitions
CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 426
The Rajasthan High Court has held that introduction of Repealing and Amendment Act 2025 that repealed Amendment Act of 2018 which brought into effect Section 148 in the Negotiable Instruments Act, did not affect the applicability of the provision.
Section 148 NI Act empowers an Appellate Court to order the appellant, convicted for offence of cheque dishonour, to deposit a minimum of 20% of the compensation awarded by the trial court during the pendency of the appeal.
The bench of Justice Anil Kumar Upman held that once incorporated into the principal legislation, the amendment formed an integral part of the same and continued to operate irrespective of the subsequent repeal of the amending legislation.
“It is a settled principle of statutory interpretation that an amendment once incorporated into the parent Act, the amendment becomes a part thereof and derives its force from the parent legislation. Consequently, repeal of the amending Act merely brings the amending enactment to an end as an independent legislative measure; it does not efface the amendments already incorporated into the parent Act.”
Title : Dr. Nitin Jhalani v Director, Rajasthan Medical Education Society, Jaipur, and ors
CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 427
The Rajasthan High Court has rejected a doctor's plea seeking extension of time to join as an Assistant Professor in General Surgery while pursuing his M.Ch. in Urology, holding that a government servant cannot retain lien on two substantive posts simultaneously.
Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand observed that extension of joining time is meant to meet administrative exigencies or personal hardship and cannot be used to stall joining or hold multiple employments while pursuing higher studies.
The Court was hearing the plea of a doctor who already held the post of Medical Officer at SMS Hospital & Medical College, Jaipur and was granted leave to pursue his M.Ch. in Urology. During the course, he was selected as Assistant Professor in General Surgery at Government Medical College, Tonk, but sought a two-year extension to join the new post until completion of his M.Ch.
Probationer Can Be Transferred: Rajasthan High Court Quashes Condition Denying Relieving On Transfer
Title : Govind v State of Rajasthan & Anr.
CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 428
The Rajasthan High Court has affirmed that unless there is a prohibition in any statute for not transferring an employee from one place to another during his/her probation period, authorities could not put such a condition in the relevant transfer order, that being de hors the law.
The division bench of Justice Vinit Kumar Mathur and Justice Chandra Shekhar Sharma further observed that in the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 (“Rules”), there was no such prohibition that if a person was discharging his/her duties as a probationer trainee, he/she shall not be transferred.
Title : Santosh v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 429
The Rajasthan High Court has granted third regular parole to a convict whose application was earlier rejected by the District Parole Advisory Committee on the ground of his unauthorised absence during a night inspection while he was lodged in an Open Air Camp, following which he was sent back to jail.
A division bench of Justice Vinit Kumar Mathur and Justice Chandra Shekhar Sharma took into account the petitioner's prolonged custody, satisfactory conduct during his first and second regular paroles, timely surrender on both occasions, and favourable reports from the District Probation and Prison Welfare Officer and the Social Justice and Empowerment Department.
Title : Suo Moto - In Re: Global Identity of the Pink City v the State of Rajasthan
The Rajasthan High Court has initiated a suo motu PIL over concerns surrounding the preservation of Jaipur's historic Walled City and protection of its UNESCO World Heritage Site status.
A division bench of Chief Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal and Justice Sameer Jain expressed deep concern over the “alarming degradation” of the historic Walled City, observing that there was a “grave and imminent necessity” to take immediate, effective and concrete steps to protect the city's prestigious UNESCO World Heritage Site status, accorded in 2019.
The matter stems from suo motu cognizance taken by Justice Pramil Kumar Mathur after taking note of a Rajasthan Patrika report concerning issues relating to the preservation, protection and maintenance of the global identity of the 'Pink City'.