| 1 |
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 |
SAW / 327 / 2026 (MAHIPAL VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 13/03/2026
Appellant challenged the cancellation of a Gram Panchayat patta granted in his favour. HELD- A patta issued in violation of the mandatory statutory procedure and in favour of a close relative of the Sarpanch, resulting in conflict of interest, nepotism and favouritism, is legally unsustainable. Possession, construction or investment cannot validate an allotment founded on illegality. The Collector rightly exercised revisional jurisdiction under Section 97. Appeal dismissed. |
| 3 |
CRLW / 410 / 2026 (NARAYAN ALIAS RAM NARAYAN VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 13/03/2026
Petitioner challenged the rejection of his application for second parole on the ground that the victim and the convict resided in the same village. HELD-Parole, being an integral facet of the reformative theory of punishment, cannot be denied on speculative apprehensions absent tangible material showing a real and imminent threat. The rights of the victim and the convict's rehabilitation must be balanced by imposing appropriate conditions rather than refusing parole. Petition allowed. |
| 4 |
CW / 12461 / 2024 (KHUSHBU CHOUDHARY VS RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT) Date of Order/Judgment: 12/03/2026
Petitioner challenged the final answer key of the Rajasthan Judicial Service Preliminary Examination. HELD-In academic evaluation, the Court does not sit as an appellate authority over the final answer key approved by the Expert Committee. A plausible alternative view is no ground for interference. Judicial interference is warranted only if the answer key is manifestly arbitrary or perverse, or a clear and indisputable error is established. The writ petition was dismissed. |
| 5 |
CMA / 1393 / 2008 (OM PRAKASH AND ORS. VS BALWANT AND ORS.) Date of Order/Judgment: 26/02/2026
Appellants challenged the dismissal of their suit under Order XI Rule 21 CPC for alleged non-compliance with an order directing production of documents. HELD – Proceedings under Order XI Rule 21(1) CPC cannot be initiated for non-compliance of an order passed under Order XI Rule 14 CPC. An order under Rule 21 requires willful default, obstinacy or contumacy in disregarding the Court's order. As these were absent, the impugned order was set aside and the suit was restored. |
| 6 |
CW / 3778 / 2026 (MOHD. SABEER KHAN VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 25/02/2026
Petitioner challenged a show cause notice proposing penalty for alleged illegal mining based on a drone survey without supply of the relied-upon survey report. HELD–Non-disclosure of the material relied upon fundamentally denies a meaningful and effective opportunity of hearing under the audi alteram partem rule. Furnishing selective particulars is no substitute for disclosure of the entire material. Such notice is amenable to writ jurisdiction and liable to be quashed. |
| 7 |
CW / 1439 / 2026 (M/S UJJAIN DREAMS VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 17/02/2026
Petitioner challenged the tender process for operation of boating services at Nakki Lake. HELD-Judicial review in tender matters is confined to the decision-making process. Where only one bidder remains responsive, strict compliance with Rule 68 of the Rajasthan Transparency in Public Procurement Rules, 2013 is mandatory. Failure to record reasons and prepare the prescribed justification note vitiates the process. The writ petition was allowed and the impugned NIT was quashed. |
| 8 |
CW / 16944 / 2021 (NATIONAL CO-OPERATIVE CONSUMERS FEDERATION OF INDIA LTD. VS MICRO AND SMALL ENTERPRISES FACILITATION COUNCIL) Date of Order/Judgment: 13/02/2026
Petitioners challenged the award passed by the Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council alleging non-following of the procedure prescribed under Section 18 of the MSMED Act. HELD-Even if the statutory procedure was not followed, such ground would fall within the ambit of Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. Writ jurisdiction cannot be exercised where a specific alternative remedy under a specific statute is provided. The writ petition was dismissed as not maintainable. |
| 9 |
CW / 18888 / 2022 (HARJI RAM VS LICHHMAN RAM) Date of Order/Judgment: 13/02/2026
Petitioners challenged rejection of their impleadment application under Order I Rule 10 CPC in proceedings under Section 251-A of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955. HELD–The competent authority must undertake a comprehensive and comparative evaluation of all feasible alternative routes. "Necessity" means absolute necessity and not mere convenience or preference. The enquiry is not confined to the route proposed by the applicant. The impugned orders were quashed and set aside. |
| 10 |
CRLW / 603 / 2026 (JITENDRA SINGH VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 12/02/2026
Petitioner sought quashing of an FIR under the Arms Act, alleging implication solely on a co-accused's disclosure statement. HELD- A co-accused's disclosure may warrant a deeper investigation, and an FIR disclosing a cognizable offence cannot ordinarily be quashed at that stage. Where the accused is already in judicial custody, the investigating agency must establish, through objective material, the means of his alleged involvement. The writ petition was partly allowed. |
| 11 |
CRLMP / 2676 / 2024 (JAI KISHAN VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 10/02/2026
Petitioner challenged concurrent orders refusing interim compensation under Section 143A of the NI Act. HELD – The statutory bar against a second revision under Section 397(3) CrPC cannot be circumvented by changing the nomenclature of the proceeding. Courts must look to the substance of the relief claimed. Inherent jurisdiction cannot substitute an exhausted revisional remedy except in cases of patent illegality or manifest miscarriage of justice. The petition was dismissed. |
