LiveLaw Rajasthan High Court Weekly Round-Up: July 06 to July 12, 2026

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 connected petitions; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 271Rampal 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 petitionsAU Small Finance Bank Ltd. v State of RajasthanLrs Of Mr. Bharat Lakhani & Ors. v Vikas Garg; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 272Jiya & Ors. v the Govt. of Rajasthan & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 273Tulsa Ram v State of Rajasthan & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 274Shailendra Bhandari v State of RajasthanSanjay Kumar & Ors. v State of Rajasthan; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 275Shubham Gurjar v State of Rajasthan, and other connected petitions; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 276Divyansh Gupta v State of RajasthanMatadeen Garg v the State of Rajasthan & Ors.Order/Judgments of the WeekCan Magistrate Decide Bail Pleas Under NDPS Act Despite Constitution Of Special Courts? Rajasthan High Court To ConsiderTitle: Kaluram v State of RajasthanThe 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.Rajasthan High Court Orders Immediate Removal Of Encroachments Over Catchments Areas Disrupting Water Flow To Nevta DamTitle: Govindram v State of RajasthanRajasthan 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.Rajasthan High Court Flags 'Intentional' Police Lapse In Murder Probe, Refuses Bail To Juvenile AccusedTitle: Conflict with law Juvenile X v State of RajasthanCitation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 268Raising 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.Cyber Fraud | Rajasthan High Court Directs Recovery Of Investigation Cost From Complainant, Says His 'Greed' Led To The CrimeTitle: Jeet Singh v State of Rajasthan, and other connected petitionsCitation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 269While 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...

LiveLaw Rajasthan High Court Weekly Round-Up: July 06 to July 12, 2026

Nupur Agrawal

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Nupur Agrawal

LiveLaw Rajasthan High Court Weekly Round-Up: July 06 to July 12, 2026

Nupur Agrawal

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Nupur Agrawal

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers