Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 198 to 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 214
NOMINAL INDEX
Milap Chand Dandiav v State of Rajasthan; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 198
State of Rajasthan v Smt. Seems Jakhar; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 200
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
Order/Judgments of the Week
Title: Milap Chand Dandiav v State of Rajasthan
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 198
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.
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: 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”.
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.