NOMINAL INDEX [Citations 164 - 178] Order/Judgments of the Week 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...
NOMINAL INDEX [Citations 164 - 178]
Order/Judgments of the Week
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
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
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.
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.”