CRLMB / 2242 / 2026 (WARIS ALIAS LAHAKI VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 27/03/2026 Applicants sought regular bail in connection with offences under the BNS arising from an alleged ATM theft. HELD – Criminal antecedents alone cannot justify refusal of bail. Court held that community service may be imposed as a condition of bail in appropriate non-heinous cases as a reformative measure under the BNSS to facilitate rehabilitation & prevent recidivism. Such conditions must have a nexus with the administration of justice and should not be imposed in gender-sensitive offences.
2
CRLR / 1521 / 2024 (RAJPAL SINGH VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 24/03/2026 Petitioner challenged proceedings under Sections 145 and 146 CrPC concerning disputed property despite pending civil proceedings. HELD- Where civil proceedings concerning title and possession are pending, parallel proceedings u/Sec145 & 146 are neither appropriate nor legally justified. Cogent and reliable material showing imminent danger of breach of peace is required; vague or bald assertions are insufficient. The revision was dismissed and the SDM’s order quashed and set aside.
3
CRLMA / 181 / 2026 (SANTOSH DANGI VS FILM M/S ROYAL SANITARY) Date of Order/Judgment: 19/03/2026 Petitioner sought waiver of costs imposed for compounding a Section 138 prosecution after settlement, citing financial incapacity and continued incarceration. HELD- Costs are regulatory in nature and their application admits of flexibility. Where the complainant has no subsisting grievance, incarceration cannot be sustained without wilful default. Costs cannot result in deprivation of personal liberty on account of financial incapacity. Costs were waived and the arrest warrant set aside.
4
CRLW / 1081 / 2026 (SHWETAMBARI VIKRAM BHATT VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 19/03/2026 Petitioners challenged the freezing of their entire bank accounts pursuant to police directions. HELD- Freezing is an extraordinary measure to be exercised sparingly and with due circumspection. It must have a “live, proximate and direct nexus” with the alleged criminal activity. Freezing beyond the disputed amount, without cogent and justifiable reasons, is disproportionate. Accounts were defreezed subject to ₹30 crores remaining frozen; pending applications stand disposed of accordingly.
5
CRLMA / 147 / 2024 (SUPRIYA VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 18/03/2026 Petitioner sought recall of the order whereby the entire FIR was quashed despite compromise being confined to two accused. HELD- Recall does not involve re-evaluation of merits, but is a limited corrective authority inherent in every Court of record to rectify an accidental or clerical mistake and restore the order to its true judicial intent. The FIR was quashed only qua the compromised parties; proceedings against the remaining accused continue unaffected. Application stands allowed.
1
CRLMB / 3107 / 2026 (NAVEEN TEMANI S/O BRIJKISHORE TEMANI VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 01/04/2026 Peti. sought anticipatory bail u/Sec.482 BNSS on ground of compromise and alleged commercial transaction. HELD- material discloses organized cyber fraud involving digital arrest of an elderly victim and transfer of huge amount through mule accounts and hawala channels. Prima facie role of applicant evident. Considering gravity, transnational nature and need for custodial interrogation, compromise held irrelevant; bail rejected. Trial court directed to consider release of seized amount.
2
CW / 14328 / 2020 (VISHNU DATT SAINI S/O GOVIND NARAYAN VS THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 25/03/2026 Petitioners challenged 1:3 category-wise shortlisting without including more meritorious reserved-category candidates in open merit. HELD- Final merit is not crystallized at screening; migration applies only at the final select list after all stages. Inclusion in open merit at shortlisting is merit-based, not ‘migration’. The screening result and shortlisting methodology warranted no interference. Writ petitions dismissed; pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
3
CW / 82 / 2025 (EX. ME-1 YASHPAL YADAV (NAVY NO. 2217074T) VS UOI) Date of Order/Judgment: 24/03/2026 Petitioner sought parity in punishment on the basis of similar charges. HELD- Similar charges do not by themselves entitle a person to parity in punishment; facts and circumstances of each case must be examined. Even if the superior officer was at fault to some extent, it cannot confer a right upon a subordinate in the uniformed forces to cause bodily injury to the superior officer. No interference warranted; writ petition dismissed. Pending applications, if any, disposed of.
4
CW / 22069 / 2018 (MOHAN LAL VERMA S/O BADRIPRAAD VS RAJENDRA PRASAD SHAH S/O SHRI HEERA LAL JI SHAH) Date of Order/Judgment: 19/03/2026 Peti. challenged the Appellate Rent Tribunal’s remand order, seeking adjudication of the appeal on merits. HELD- Remand should be exercised only where the Appellate Rent Tribunal is unable to effectively exercise its jurisdiction. u/the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001, subsequent events may be brought on record through affidavits; strict CPC procedure is unwarranted. Remand set aside and appeal remanded for merits. Connected petition dismissed; pending applications, if any, disposed of.
5
CMA / 1302 / 2019 (DIRECTOR, INTEGRATED CHILD DEVELOPMENT SERVICES VS M/S MURLIWALA AGROTECH PVT. LTD.) Date of Order/Judgment: 19/03/2026 Appellants challenged the award, disputing the arbitration clause and interest. HELD- Though existence of an arbitration agreement can be questioned at the appellate stage; a plea not raised before the Sec11 Court, Commercial Court or in the appeal cannot be urged through oral submissions. Clause 17 provided for arbitration and the plea was misconceived. Interest was awarded after considering applicable law. Appeal dismissed; award to be implemented. Pending applications stand disposed of.
