| 1 |
CRLMB / 6014 / 2026 (NAND KISHORE VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 25/08/2026
The petitioner sought bail under Section 483 BNSS, alleging that the night search without warrant violated Section 42 NDPS Act. HELD- A night search without warrant is permissible where the officer records reasons showing that delay may lead to escape or concealment and communicates the information as required. Here, prima facie compliance was shown. Since commercial quantity was recovered, Section 37 barred bail absent reasonable grounds of innocence; application dismissed. |
| 2 |
CW / 12887 / 2012 (M/S. ANIL SUGAR CANDY WORKS VS STATE OF RAJ. AND ORS) Date of Order/Judgment: 05/05/2026
The petitioners sought quashing of the search and seizure of their business and residential premises u/Sec 75 of the Rajasthan Value Added Tax Act, 2003, alleging no sufficient basis. HELD- Residential premises may be searched where tangible material creates reasonable belief of tax evasion or concealment of business records. Here, the complaint, inquiry reports, common ownership, similar businesses and prior tax proceedings furnished such basis; search upheld and petitions dismissed. |
| 3 |
CRLW / 224 / 2026 (ISLAM KHAN VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 05/05/2026
The petitioners sought restraint against police photographing and circulating their images after arrest, alleging violation of dignity, privacy and fair trial. HELD- Police power to investigate does not include power to declare guilt or impose punishment. Public condemnation through media exposure, staged photographs or social-media circulation amounts to extra-legal punishment, violates presumption of innocence and Article 21; police cannot conduct a parallel social/media trail. |
| 4 |
CRLMP / 9802 / 2025 (KUNARAM VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 28/04/2026
Petitioner sought exemption from the 20% pre-deposit imposed while suspending sentence u/Sec 430 BNSS in an appeal against Section 138 N.I. Act conviction. HELD- Sections 430 BNSS and 148 N.I. Act operates independently; Section 148 requires a complainant’s application and judicious exercise after hearing the accused, not routine imposition. Deposit may be dispensed with where it causes injustice. Condition set aside; appeal to proceed without pre-deposit. Petition disposed accordingly. |
| 5 |
CRLA / 193 / 1998 (STATE VS SEWA SINGH AND ORS) Date of Order/Judgment: 28/04/2026
The State sought setting aside of the probation granted despite conviction under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act. HELD- Probation was justified for first-time offenders without adverse antecedents, considering their reformation and prolonged prosecution. The Trial Court balanced societal interest with rehabilitation through conditions ensuring accountability. Absent illegality, perversity or gross impropriety, appellate interference was unwarranted; appeal dismissed. |
| 6 |
SAW / 1111 / 2024 (STATE OF RAJASTHAN VS VIJAY KUMAR JOSHI) Date of Order/Judgment: 23/04/2026
State challenged counting of respondents’ contractual service from 2002/2004 for pension and other benefits. HELD- Though termed contractual, their engagement was essentially on urgent temporary basis and continued uninterruptedly until regular appointment in 2015. Service from 2002/2004 to 2015 is qualifying service under Rules 3(r) and 12 of the Pension Rules, 1996. Probation could not restart in 2015; prior service also qualified for privilege leave. State’s appeal dismissed. |
| 7 |
CRLMP / 2009 / 2026 (MOHAMMAD ATIK VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 21/04/2026
Peti challenged bailable warrants issued after filing of charge-sheet, though they were not arrested during investigation. HELD- Where custody was not required during investigation & there is no likelihood of absconding, tampering with evidence or evading process, accused should not be taken into custody merely for consideration of bail. “Custody” u/Sec 170 CrPC means presentation before Court, not compulsory arrest. Warrants can’t be issued casually; petition allowed & warrants quashed. |
| 8 |
CRLAS / 745 / 2022 (KANA RAM VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 17/04/2026
Appellant challenged conviction for demanding and accepting bribe. HELD- under the Prevention of Corruption Act, demand and acceptance of illegal gratification must be proved beyond reasonable doubt. Complainant turned hostile; no work was pending; tainted money was recovered from the ground. Electronic evidence was inadmissible without a valid, contemporaneous Section 65B certificate; a six-year-delayed certificate could not cure the defect. Conviction set aside; appellant acquitted. |
| 9 |
CRLBC / 70 / 2025 (ARJIN RAM VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 17/04/2026
Complainant sought cancellation of bail granted to Respondent No.2. HELD- Under Section 483(3) BNSS, 2023, bail is a conditional liberty. Repeated threats, coercive demands and intimidation after release constitute supervening circumstances warranting cancellation. Intimidation of the complainant or witnesses imperils a fair trial. Bail cancellation is preventive, not punitive. Bail order set aside; Respondent No.2 directed to surrender forthwith. |
| 10 |
CRLW / 1646 / 2026 (ASLAM KHAN VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 16/04/2026
Petitioner sought quashing of proceedings arising from a 2004 FIR under Section 379 IPC. HELD- Though mere delay does not extinguish investigation, continued pendency despite petitioner not being named, acquittal of the charge-sheeted accused, absence of fresh incriminating material and complete investigative stagnation violates Article 21. Indefinite investigative inertia is impermissible and continuation amounts to abuse of criminal process; proceedings qua petitioner quashed. |
| 11 |
CMA / 412 / 2025 (JAI NARAYAN VYAS UNIVERSITY VS M/S SAWAI ENGINEERS) Date of Order/Judgment: 16/04/2026
University challenged the arbitral award under Sections 34 and 37 of the Arbitration Act. HELD- Section 37 jurisdiction is even more narrowly circumscribed,the Court cannot re-appreciate evidence or substitute its own view where the Arbitrator’s findings represent a plausible view. An alternative interpretation of Clause 6 is no ground for interference. The findings on limitation represented a possible view; no ground for interference was made out. Appeal dismissed; award upheld. |
| 12 |
CW / 4523 / 2026 (SHRI NITIN JAIN VS THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY) Date of Order/Judgment: 10/04/2026
Petitioners alleged illegal construction and encroachment in Mount Abu ESZ. HELD- The principal allegations of continuing large-scale encroachment did not survive on record. However, the ESZ Notifications and Zonal Master Plan 2030 are enforceable; no construction or activity contrary to them can be permitted. Strict monitoring and enforcement are mandatory to protect Mount Abu’s fragile ecology. Environmental protection is a constitutional mandate u/Art21, 48A and 51A(g). PIL disposed of. |
| 13 |
CRLA / 612 / 1996 (STATE VS SURAJ DASS) Date of Order/Judgment: 09/04/2026
The State sought reversal of the acquittal, contending that the prosecution had proved the recovery and compliance with the NDPS safeguards. HELD- Material contradictions, doubtful chain of custody, inadequate proof of Sections 42/50 compliance and failure to establish conscious possession cumulatively created reasonable doubt. The Trial Court’s view was plausible and legally sustainable; hence no interference was warranted. Appeal dismissed; acquittal affirmed. |
| 14 |
CRLAS / 644 / 2026 (STATE OF RAJASTHAN VS ASHOK CHANDER BHATIA) Date of Order/Judgment: 08/04/2026
Whether the acquittal could be reversed when the prosecutrix and witnesses vacillated and the evidence admitted two reasonable views. HELD- The preliminary inquiry report was only corroborative and could not substitute substantive proof; contradictions and partial retraction by the prosecutrix, with discordant inquiry material, created reasonable doubt. As the Trial Court’s view was possible and lawful, and not perverse, benefit of doubt was rightly given. Appeal dismissed; acquittal affirmed. |
| 15 |
CRLAS / 142 / 2026 (OM PRAKASH NAYAK VS GOPAL RAM) Date of Order/Judgment: 07/04/2026
The appellant sought restoration of the Section 138 NI Act complaint, challenging its dismissal for one instance of non-appearance. HELD- Since dismissal for default carries consequences akin to acquittal, the Court must apply its mind to deliberate or contumacious default, prior diligence, prejudice and whether another opportunity is warranted. Mechanical dismissal defeats adjudication on merits; the non-speaking, disproportionate order was set aside and the complaint restored. |
