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.
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 / 6884 / 2025 (THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN VS M/S ADVENT ENVIROCARE TECHNOLOGY PVT. LTD.) Date of Order/Judgment: 17/03/2026 Petitioners challenged the Executing Court's order fastening liability upon non-parties in execution of an arbitral award. HELD–Execution is a mechanism for enforcement of an adjudicated liability and not a forum for creation or enlargement thereof. The Executing Court cannot travel beyond the arbitral award or enlarge the decree beyond its terms. The impugned order was set aside, the matter remanded, and pending applications stood disposed of accordingly.
3
CRLMP / 3729 / 2024 (ACHLESHWER MEENA S/O SH. JATASHANKER MEENA, VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 17/03/2026 Petitioner challenged the FIR and consequential proceedings alleging investigation in violation of statutory procedure and constitutional safeguards. HELD-Investigation before registration of FIR is impermissible. The nature of police action, not its description as a "discreet enquiry", determines its legality. Telephone interception without satisfying Section 5(2) of the Telegraph Act and Rule 419-A violates Articles 21 and 22. FIR, charge-sheet and consequential proceedings quashed.
4
CRLMP / 7231 / 2025 (JITENDRA MEENA @ JITENDRA MATSYA S/O KALYAN SAHAI MATSYA, VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 16/03/2026 Petitioner sought quashing of the FIR alleging a civil dispute and successive FIR, while the complainant sought expeditious investigation. HELD- Where an FIR discloses a cognizable offence, its correctness cannot be examined under Sec 482 CrPC. Noticing inordinate delay in investigation, the Court directed formulation of a policy separating the investigation and law-and-order wings to ensure speedier and effective investigation, and expeditious submission of the report u/Sec 173 CrPC.
5
CRLW / 51 / 2016 (SUBHASH SAINI VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ANR) Date of Order/Judgment: 12/03/2026 Petitioner challenged the rejection of his application seeking withdrawal of consent for a Narco Analysis Test. HELD-Consent once given for a Narco Analysis Test cannot be treated as irrevocable and may be withdrawn before its administration. Conducting the test against the accused's free will and consent violates Articles 20(3) and 21, the right to remain silent and the protection against self-incrimination. Writ petition allowed.
