Victory Flour Mills v Smt. Sneh Lal Goyal & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 244

Iqbal Khan v State of Rajasthan & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 245

Smt. Indra Devi v State of Rajasthan & Anr.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 246

Arun Singh & Anr. v State of Rajasthan & Anr.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 247

B v N; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 248

Rohit Joshi v State of Rajasthan & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 249

Smt. Bhanwari Devi v the State of Rajasthan & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 250

Kanaram v State of Rajasthan; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 251

Satyanarayan Singh Rajpurohit v State of Rajasthan & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 252

Manisha Jain v State of Rajasthan, and other connected petition; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 253

Order/Judgments of the Week

Can A Fresh Cheque Bounce Complaint Be Filed After Withdrawal Of A Premature Complaint? Rajasthan High Court Answers

Title: M/s Victory Flour Mills v Smt. Sneh Lal Goyal & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 244

The Rajasthan High Court has dismissed a petition seeking quashing of proceedings under Section 138 NI Act on the ground that the complaint filed in 2016 was time barred and filed without any application for condonation of delay under the Limitation Act. [Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 244]

The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand held that if an earlier complaint that was found to be premature, was withdrawn by the complainant, the subsequent complaint could not be treated as time barred.

The Court further observed that since the original complaint was filed in 2016, and the present quashing petition was filed at the fag end of the trial, after recording of evidence of both the sides, it could not be entertained.

Conviction Not Mandatory To Open History Sheet Against 'Habitual Offender' Under Police Rules: Rajasthan High Court

Title: Iqbal Khan v State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 245

The Rajasthan High Court has held that a prior conviction is not a mandatory prerequisite for opening or reopening a history sheet under the Rajasthan Police Rules, 1965, if the police have reasonable grounds to believe that a person is habitually addicted to crime. 

The bench of Justice Rekha Borana clarified that the expression "habitual offender" under the Police Rules cannot be imported from the Rajasthan Habitual Offenders Act, 1953, which requires three convictions, as the Rules themselves permit opening a history sheet even against a person who has not been convicted.

“Rule 4.4(3)(b) does not presuppose any conviction, rather, it incorporates a specific stipulation that conviction is not mandatory. In that event, the definition of 'habitual offender' as provided under the Act of 1953 which presupposes three convictions, definitely cannot be applied to the said rule.”

Widowed Jethani Living Separately Unlikely To Benefit From Alleged Dowry: Rajasthan High Court Quashes Case

Title: Smt. Indra Devi v State of Rajasthan & Anr.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 246

The Rajasthan High Court has quashed the criminal proceedings under Section 498A IPC against a woman's sister-in-law (jethani), holding that the latter being a widow and living separately from the in-laws family was unlikely to benefit from the alleged dowry or to harass the complainant (woman).

The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand held that the sister-in-law (petitioner) had nothing to gain from the cash or articles of dowry that allegedly had to be given to the complainant's husband and parents-in-law.

The Court held that ordinarily, in matrimonial disputes, the harassment was subjected by the husband or parents-in-law.

“The petitioner, being sister-in-law of the complainant i.e. Jethani, has no concern whatsoever, with the domestic affairs of the complainant and her husband. She would not benefit from any demand of dowry, if any, made by the husband or in-laws with the complainant who is sister-in-law (Devrani) of the petitioner.”

Can Bail Granted for Bailable Offences Be Cancelled If Graver Non‑bailable Offences Are Later Added: Rajasthan High Court Decides

Title: Arun Singh & Anr. v State of Rajasthan & Anr.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 247

The Rajasthan High Court has held that benefit of bail granted to an accused under bailable offences cannot continue and stands cancelled on addition of a graver, non-bailable offence.

After making references to certain Supreme Court decisions including Prahlad Singh Bhati vs. NCT, Delhi & Anr. and Pradeep Ram vs. the State of Jharkhand & Anr., the Court held that,

“…benefit of bail granted to the accused for bailable offences cannot be allowed to continue and the same is liable to be cancelled on addition of graver/non-bailable offence.”

Rajasthan High Court Rejects Husband's Plea Seeking Wife's Narco, Polygraph & DNA Tests To Rebut Impotency Allegations

Title: B v N

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 248

The Rajasthan High Court has upheld the rejection of a husband's application seeking joint medical examination of himself and his wife, to refute the allegations of physical incapacity and impotency levelled by the wife in her divorce petition. 

The bench of Justice Sanjeet Purohit observed that firstly, the application was filed at a belated stage of the proceedings, and secondly, the petitioner failed to establish the relevance or necessity of the Narco Test, Polygraph test, DNA Test, etc. to the issue of alleged sexual incapacity or impotence.

The Court further observed that since the allegation were levelled by the respondent-wife, the burden of proof lied upon her. The Court could not be expected to collect evidence on behalf of a litigant.

Habeas Corpus Can't Be Granted Despite Non-Communication Of Grounds Of Arrest After Judicial Remand: Rajasthan High Court

Title: Rohit Joshi v State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 249

The Rajasthan High Court has held that a writ of habeas corpus cannot be maintained to challenge an arrest on the ground that the arrestee was not communicated the grounds of arrest, once judicial remand orders have been passed, even though such non-compliance amounts to a violation of the mandatory constitutional and statutory safeguards under Article 22(1) of the Constitution and Section 47 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). 

A Division Bench of Justice Uma Shanker Vyas and Justice Ashok Kumar Jain dismissed a habeas corpus petition filed by the son of former Rajasthan minister Dr. Mahesh Joshi, who alleged that the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) had failed to communicate the grounds of arrest to the detenue or his family at the time of his arrest in a corruption case.

While finding that there was non-compliance with the mandatory requirements governing arrest, the Court held that it could not grant habeas corpus relief because the detenue was already in judicial custody pursuant to remand orders.

Rajasthan High Court Orders Tehsildar To Personally Pay ₹2 Lakh Compensation For 53-Day Illegal Detention, Directs Inquiry

Title: Smt. Bhanwari Devi v the State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 250

The Rajasthan High Court came down heavily upon the State for illegal detention of a HIV+ person for 53 days after the order of his release was passed and imposed a personal cost of Rs. 2 lakhs on the concerned erring Tehsildar.

Terming the act as “diabolical”, the division bench of Justice Farjand Ali and Justice Sunil Beniwal observed that the incident was not merely administrative failure but a “callous indifference to human suffering that shocks the conscience of this Court.”

“When the State through the obstinacy of a single functionary subjects a sick, impoverished man to fifty-three days of illegal confinement while his ailing wife pleads in vain at the gates of officialdom, it betrays the foundational promise of the Constitution in the most egregious manner.”

The Court rejected the argument on behalf of the Tehsildar pleading unawareness about the order of release, and opined that it was wholly incongruous to suggest that an appellant forum could pass an order suspending sentence, without the order reaching the very office charged with execution of that sentence.

“An officer who continues to confine a person in the face of a valid suspension order, repeated personal requests for release, institution of a writ petition in the High Court, and his own admitted knowledge of the order, cannot be heard to say that his misconduct was innocent or accidental. The element of wilfulness elevates the gravity of the wrong and must be reflected in the quantum of compensation.”

Justice Administration Not Divorced From Human Dignity: Rajasthan High Court Suspends Life Convict's Sentence On Severe Medical Condition

Title: Kanaram v State of Rajasthan

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 251

Rajasthan High Court suspended life-sentence and granted bail to a murder convict, suffering from the severe ailment of Guillain-Barre Syndrome. It held that humanitarian consideration assumed greater significance when the ailment was so severe that confinement might deprive the appellant of comfort, emotional support and constant care which only family could provide. 

The division bench of Justice Farjand Ali and Justice Sunil Beniwal observed that even though medical ailments alone did not automatically entitle a convict for suspension of sentence, constitutional court could not remain oblivious to the humanitarian dimension of criminal justice.

“The administration of justice is not divorced from considerations of human dignity. Where the material demonstrates that a convict is afflicted with a progressive neurological disorder which substantially diminishes his physical capacities and renders him dependent upon continuous care and assistance, the Court is required to balance the demands of criminal justice with the constitutional obligation to preserve human dignity.”

Administrative Decisions Must Be Tested On Legality, Not Political Identity Of Person Who Raised Issue: Rajasthan High Court

Title: Satyanarayan Singh Rajpurohit v State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 252

The Rajasthan High Court has held that the validity of an administrative decision must be tested on the touchstone of the applicable statutory framework and the procedure followed, and not on the political identity of the person who brought the issue to the notice of the authorities.

Justice Sanjeet Purohit observed that the mere fact that a representation was made by a local leader of the ruling party does not, by itself, render the resultant administrative decision illegal, arbitrary or vitiated by mala fides.

The Court made the observation while dismissing a plea challenging the State Government's notification creating the new revenue village of 'Khichan Vistar' in Phalodi district.

Magistrate Can't Reject Negative Final Report Solely Based On Protest Petition: Rajasthan High Court Quashes Cognizance In Rape Case

Title: Manisha Jain v State of Rajasthan, and other connected petition

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 253

The Rajasthan High Court has held that a Magistrate cannot reject a negative final report and take cognizance of offences solely on the basis of the averments made in a protest petition, without meaningfully considering the material collected during investigation and recording reasons for disagreeing with the investigating officer's conclusions.

Holding that the cognizance order suffered from non-application of mind, Justice Farjand Ali quashed the proceedings against two accused in a rape case after accepting the police's negative final report.

The Court observed that while departing from the conclusion of the investigating agency, the order must disclose due and meaningful consideration of the material collected during investigation. It opined that judicial discretion could not be exercised in an unstructured or mechanical manner.