CRLMP / 9056 / 2025 (YASHWANT SOLANKI VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 12/02/2026 Petitioner challenged the rejection of his application under Section 94 BNSS seeking summoning of records of departmental proceedings arising from the same incident. HELD-An accused may invoke Section 94 BNSS during trial to summon documents necessary or desirable for effective cross-examination and a fair defence. This right, an integral facet of a fair trial under Article 21, cannot be denied merely because the documents form part of pending departmental proceedings. Petition allowed.
2
CRLMP / 7453 / 2025 (MAHAVEER VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 07/02/2026 Petitioner sought quashing of orders directing police & FSL to investigate the matter in a particular manner. HELD- though Court may direct further investigation u/Sec.173(8) CrPC, it cannot control manner of investigation or prescribe mode of collecting evidence, such power lies in exclusive domain of Investigating Agency, Court may monitor but not supervise. Such directions are unwarranted hence set aside to that extent. Petition partly allowed and pending applications disposed of.
3
CRLMP / 7662 / 2025 (DEEPAK ARORA VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 07/02/2026 Petitioner sought quashing of FIR and consequential proceedings for offences under BNS and SC/ST Act arising out of alleged incident in Director’s office. HELD- even if FIR is taken at face value, incident within “four corners of the office” is not in “public views” mere presence of few employees is not public. Sec 3 (1) (r) & (s) not made out. Use of word “neech” is not caste-based and “mens rea” to humiliate is missing; continuation amounts to abuse of process of Court. FIR quashed.
4
CRLR / 103 / 2026 (SUMITRA VS ASHISH) Date of Order/Judgment: 04/02/2026 Accused sought quashing of appellate judgment setting aside conviction & remanding matter for fresh trial. HELD- appeal u/ proviso of Sec 372 CrPC not maintainable as it lies only against acquittal, lesser conviction or inadequate compensation grant of probation is part of sentencing. Appellate court committed fundamental jurisdictional error & made unwarranted assumption. Remand giving prosecution “2nd opportunity” is impermissible. Revision allowed, trial court’s judgment restored.
5
CRLR / 904 / 2025 (RAMURAM VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 03/02/2026 Petitioner sought restoration of the S.D.M.’s order directing attachment of the disputed land and appointment of a receiver, which had been set aside in revision. HELD- proceedings u/Sec.145 & 146 CrPC require material showing real and immediate threat of breach of peace, mere apprehension is insufficient. SDM acted without such material, Hon’ble court found that the entire proceedings are vitiated Impugned orders quashed and set aside, revision allowed and pending applications disposed of.
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
CRLAS / 1372 / 2019 (PRITHVILAL MEENA S/O SHRI BADRI PRASAD MEENA B/C MEENA VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 09/03/2026 Appellants challenged their conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act, contending that demand of illegal gratification was not proved. HELD-A duly proved voice recording supported by a Sec 65-B certificate, read with the trap proceedings, recovery and other corroborative circumstances, is sufficient to establish demand notwithstanding a hostile complainant. Recovery through a middleman acting under the public servant's directions constitutes valid acceptance. Conviction upheld.
3
CW / 1217 / 2026 (ARL INFRATECH LIMITED VS DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX) Date of Order/Judgment: 06/03/2026 Petitioner challenged the provisional attachment of its property under Section 281B of the Income Tax Act. HELD-The power under Section 281B can be invoked only where it is necessary to protect Government revenue, based on tangible material and strict fulfilment of statutory conditions. Before attaching property, the authority must consider whether the assessee is a regular taxpayer, as principles of natural justice are inherent in the exercise of such power. Attachment quashed.
4
SAW / 64 / 2026 (LORDS CHLORO ALKALI LTD. VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 06/03/2026 Appel. challenged RIICO's demand for recovery of the Interest Free Sales Tax Loan contrary to a sanctioned BIFR Rehabilitation Scheme. HELD-A Rehabilitation Scheme sanctioned under Sec 18 & 19 of SICA, attaining finality, binds the State Govt, RIICO & all stakeholders. Silence of the State amounts to acquiescence & deemed consent. The Scheme cannot be denied on alleged delay where the beneficiary was ready to perform but the respondents refused payment
5
CW / 5320 / 2020 (SMT CHAYA SETHI W/O LATE SHRI VIMAL KUMAR SETHI VS JITENDRA BOHRA S/O LATE SHRI BALKISHAN BOHRA) Date of Order/Judgment: 07/02/2026 Petition sought quashing of orders contending that eviction decree is inexecutable against them as they were not impleaded and claim tenancy rights. HELD- upon death of original tenant, heirs succeed as joint tenants, not as co-tenants. Tenancy remains single & indivisible. Decree against one joint tenant binds all. Non-impleadment of every heir is immaterial. No perversity or jurisdictional error shown. Writ petition dismissed, pending applications disposed of.
