NOMINAL INDEX Kaluram v State of RajasthanGovindram v State of RajasthanConflict with law Juvenile X v State of Rajasthan; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 268Jeet Singh v State of Rajasthan, and other connected petitions; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 269Om Prakash Shakywal v Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Utpadan Nigam Limited & Anr.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 270Mohammad Usman v National Investigation Agency, and other...
NOMINAL INDEX
Kaluram v State of Rajasthan
Govindram v State of Rajasthan
Conflict with law Juvenile X v State of Rajasthan; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 268
Jeet Singh v State of Rajasthan, and other connected petitions; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 269
Om Prakash Shakywal v Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Utpadan Nigam Limited & Anr.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 270
Mohammad Usman v National Investigation Agency, and other connected petitions; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 271
Rampal Jat v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Suo Moto In Re- Public Health - Protect The Present And Safeguard The Future From Food Adulteration v Union of India, and other connected petitions
AU Small Finance Bank Ltd. v State of Rajasthan
Lrs Of Mr. Bharat Lakhani & Ors. v Vikas Garg; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 272
Jiya & Ors. v the Govt. of Rajasthan & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 273
Tulsa Ram v State of Rajasthan & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 274
Shailendra Bhandari v State of Rajasthan
Sanjay Kumar & Ors. v State of Rajasthan; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 275
Shubham Gurjar v State of Rajasthan, and other connected petitions; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 276
Divyansh Gupta v State of Rajasthan
Matadeen Garg v the State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Order/Judgments of the Week
Title: Kaluram v State of Rajasthan
The Rajasthan High Court is set to consider the question whether a judicial magistrate has jurisdiction to hear and decide bail applications for offences under NDPS Act, despite constitution of Special Courts as per Sections 36, 36A for trial of such offences.
In doing so the court has asked members of the bar to assist the court on the issue.
Section 36A of the Act mandated that the offences punishable under the NDPS Act were exclusively triable by the Special Courts. Section 36 of the Act provided that the Special Court consisted of a single judge appointed by the Government with concurrence of the Chief Justice of the High Court.
Title: Govindram v State of Rajasthan
Rajasthan High Court has taken serious note of encroachments on the Nalas (stream bed) and catchments areas and construction of pakka boundary walls for land demarcations in the village of Khatwada, resulting in stoppage/disruptions in the natural flow of water in the Nevta Dam.
The division bench of Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma and Justice Maneesh Sharma directed the State authorities to immediately remove encroachments and constructions over the Nalas and catchments areas of Khatwada village, and the areas of Ramgarh and Kukas, after giving opportunity to the concerned land-owners to themselves provide access to the flow of water.
The Court also restricted Civil Courts and the Revenue Courts to entertain any civil suits relating to the catchment area. It was observed that the steps taken for such removals, shall be undertaken immediately in the background of approaching monsoons, and shall not be stopped in any manner without the Court's permission.
Title: Conflict with law Juvenile X v State of Rajasthan
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 268
Raising apprehension of an 'intentional' lapse in investigation by the police, Rajasthan High Court recently upheld the rejection of bail to a 13-year old accused in a murder case.
The bench of Justice Ravi Chirania observed that despite complainant's written refusal for post-mortem at the relevant time, it was police's duty to conduct the Panchnama while handing over the body to the family.
“…though the complainant may have refused for post mortem at the relevant time by submitting a hand-written letter, but it was the duty of the police officer who was present at that time in the hospital to conduct the Panchnama, who did not conduct the same while handing over the body to the complainant and other family members for performing the funeral. There is a serious lacuna on the part of police which appears to be intentional in conducting the investigation in the case,” the Court said.
Title: Jeet Singh v State of Rajasthan, and other connected petitions
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 269
While rejecting bail in an alleged cyber crime case, the Rajasthan High Court observed that the crime was a result of complainant's greed and directed the Superintendent of Police to recover the cost of the investigation in the case from the complainant.
The bench of Justice Ravi Chirania opined that the reason behind successful commission of most of the cyber crimes was people's greed to earn unusual high returns, and to investigate the consequence of such greed, the State machinery had to be put into action.
“To investigate the consequences of such greed, the State has no other option, but to put its machinery into motion, however, precious public money cannot be allowed to be expended in investigating such offences which, prima facie have occurred due to greed of such persons.”
Title: Om Prakash Shakywal v Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Utpadan Nigam Limited & Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 270
The Rajasthan High Court has held that a writ petition challenging a recruitment process cannot be dismissed merely on the grounds of it becoming infructuous due to lapse of more than 6 months or the fact that subsequent selection processes were culminated.
“Although we do not agree with the view taken by the learned Single Judge as regards the writ petition having become otiose and infructuous merely because more than six months time was lapsed or on the ground that further subsequent selection processes have been initiated and culminated, the same cannot be a reason for dismissal of writ petition. Law is well settled based on the legal maxim Actus Curiae Neminem Gravabit that no Court shall oust a litigant merely on account of pendency of the writ petition for several years. No person can be made to suffer on account of the delay in deciding the cases.”
The Court referred to a Supreme Court decision in Prabodh Verma & Ors. vs. State of U.P. & Ors., to hold that, “writ petition would not be maintainable if a person is challenging appointment of candidate without impleading them as party to the writ petition”.
Title: Mohammad Usman v National Investigation Agency, and other connected petitions
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 271
Rajasthan High Court denied bail to three men accused of being the residents of Myanmar and illegally importing Rohingya-origin girls to India under the false pretext of solemnizing their marriage and then selling them off.
The division bench of Justice Inderjeet Singh and Justice Bhuwan Goyal observed that taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, statements of the protected witnesses and the seriousness of the allegations, the rejection of bail had to be upheld.
Title: Rampal Jat v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Rajasthan High Court directed issuance of notices to the concerned State authorities in relation to the contended issue of government not procuring crops, despite those confirming to the prescribed standards, resulting in farmers being forced to sell the crops at much lower prices and suffering losses.
The division bench of Acting Chief Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma and Justice Maneesh Sharma has sought an affidavit to be filed detailing the steps taken for procurement of crops at Minimum Support Price (MSP) and whether any discretion was available with the authorities to not purchase such crops like Makka, Bajra, Moong, and Chana.
Title: Suo Moto In Re- Public Health - Protect The Present And Safeguard The Future From Food Adulteration v Union of India, and other connected petitions
While hearing a PIL and Suo Moto petitions relating to food adulteration, Rajasthan High Court has directed conduct of inspections regarding the manner adopted to prevent synthetic products by cooperatives selling milk and milk products including Saras, Amul, Lotus, Mother Dairy etc.
The division bench of Acting Chief Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma and Justice Maneesh Sharma took on record studies that reflected rampant use of Urea in animal feed and resulting possibility of poor quality of milk. The Court also highlighted a report reflecting death of more than 500 farmers owing to unsafe use of pesticides.
In this background, it was observed, “We notice that apart from the Government Cooperative agency, RCDF which sells the ordinary milk products by name of Saras and there are other Cooperatives like Amul, Lotus, Mother Dairy and other agencies which are also selling milk and other milk products. A need arises to check the method and manner which they are adopting and preventing synthetic products. The State Government Authorities shall conduct inspections in this regard and submit its report to this Court.”
Title: AU Small Finance Bank Ltd. v State of Rajasthan
The Rajasthan High Court has agreed to examine whether the Police Department can levy charges on banks for providing assistance in taking possession of secured assets under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002.
Justice Sameer Jain observed that the issue raises substantial questions of law concerning the interplay between the SARFAESI Act, the Rajasthan Police Act, and the constitutional principles governing the levy of fees by State instrumentalities.
The development comes in a petition been filed by AU Small Finance Bank, challenging the imposition of charges by the police department for assisting it in securing physical possession of the secured assets.
Title: Lrs Of Mr. Bharat Lakhani & Ors. v Vikas Garg
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 272
The Rajasthan High Court has upheld a Rent Tribunal's order permitting amendment of an eviction petition to incorporate reference to a postal receipt and acknowledgement due (AD) card that had already been filed along with the original petition but were omitted from the pleadings due to a clerical error.
Holding that marking documents already on record as exhibits does not prejudice the opposite party or enlarge the case of the litigant, Justice Farjand Ali observed that hyper-technical objections should not be allowed to defeat adjudication on merits.
The bench was of the opinion that the amendment neither changed the character of the eviction proceedings nor introduced a fresh cause of action, hence, permitting such exhibit marking did not enable the respondent (eviction-petitioner) to improve or embellish his case by introducing fresh evidence.
Title: Jiya & Ors. v the Govt. of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 273
The Rajasthan High Court has directed its Registry to not register any cases as “Criminal Writ Petition”, opining that there was no such concept provided in the Constitution of India.
The division bench of Acting Chief Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma and Justice Maneesh Sharma held that it was for the Court to examine the case for the purpose of placing them before the concerned roster.
“Registry has also entertained it as a Criminal Writ Petition, whereas there is no such concept of Criminal Writ Petition provided in the Constitution. A writ petition can be filed for raising the issues which may also relate to a criminal matter but the same would not be treated as a 'Criminal Writ Petition' and the same can only be registered as a writ petition alone. It is for the Court to examine the case or for the purpose of placing them before the concerned roster. Henceforth, the Registry is directed not to register any case as 'Criminal Writ Petition'". the court said.
Rajasthan High Court Imposes 3-Year Social Media Ban On Youth Booked For Morphing Minor's Photos
Title: Tulsa Ram v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 274
The Rajasthan High Court has imposed a 3-year social media ban on a youth accused of morphing images of a minor and uploading them on social media with an intention to defame her.
FIR was registered against him under the relevant provisions of the BNS, POCSO Act, and the Information Technology Act.
“The applicant-accused shall submit an affidavit/undertaking before the trial Court for not using social media platform including facebook, instagram, thread, snapchat etc. for a period of three years and if it is found that the applicant-accused is using any of the social media platform in his own name or any fictitious name then his bail order may be recalled by the trial Court itself.”
Title: Shailendra Bhandari v State of Rajasthan
The Rajasthan High Court has expressed displeasure over State's inaction against alleged illegal dyeing and printing in the housing colonies of Jodhpur, resulting in pollution.
The division bench of Justice Vinit Kumar Mathur and Justice Chandra Shekhar Sharma highlighted that despite granting time multiple times in the past, the State had not taken any action neither filed any response.
The Court directed the concerned authorities to provide explanation behind this inaction, and also to act in accordance with their orders/letters and submit a compliance report on the next date.
Title: Sanjay Kumar & Ors. v State of Rajasthan
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 275
The Rajasthan High Court has held that experience gained by rendering medical services in Government Health institutions, and corresponding benefits, could not be denied to the concerned persons merely because their salary was routed through a charitable trust under an administrative arrangement approved by the State Government.
The bench of Justice Nupur Bhati observed that the mode of salary disbursement was not of legal significance since it could not eclipse the undisputed fact of actual service being rendered and experience being acquired.
Title: Shubham Gurjar v State of Rajasthan, and other connected petitions
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 276
The Rajasthan High Court has refused to grant bail to several foreign MBBS graduates accused of securing mandatory internships in government and private hospitals by using fake Foreign Medical Graduate Examination (FMGE) clearance certificates.
The bench of Justice Ravi Chirania observed, "Though, the petitioners are students, however, their admitted act of using fake certificates of FMGE clearly shows that despite having the professional degrees, they did the above mentioned serious act, which cannot be taken lightly in the given facts and circumstances."
Title: Divyansh Gupta v State of Rajasthan
The Rajasthan High Court has issued notices to S.S. Jain Subodh Law College affiliated with Dr. Bhimrao Ambedkar Law University and its Principal, over allegations of misbehaviour by the Principal with the student.
The bench of Justice Shubha Mehta issued notice on the student's plea which further alleges that the College has not complied with the mandatory requirement of having a Student Grievance Redressal Committee (SGRC) in place.
As per the petition filed by the student, it has been alleged that firstly he was not informed or invited to the convocation ceremony. When grievance was raised with the principal of the College, allegedly, the principal started abusing and threatening the petitioner.
Title: Matadeen Garg v the State of Rajasthan & Ors.
The Rajasthan High Court has imposed Rs. 1,00,000 costs on the Department of Law and Legal Affairs, the High Court administration, Chief Accounts Officer (Directorate of Estate), and Director (Pension and Pensioners Welfare), for withholding the retirement benefits of a former trial court judge, who retired in 1999.
The division bench of Acting Chief Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma and Justice Maneesh Sharma directed the respondents to release the dues within 7 days, with an interest of 9% per annum, to the petitioner who was running in his 80s.