CRLMB / 7940 / 2025 (ADNAN HAIDAR BHAI VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 27/11/2025 Applicants seek bail in a digital-arrest fraud case. HELD-prima facie evidence showed accused’s involvement in an organized cyber-extortion network and custodial safeguards were needed, bail was rejected. Court found that IOs are not expert in technology. Various directions issued for handling these types of crimes to ACS Homes, DGP, D.G, SCRB & Cyber, Banks & Financial Institution & other Companies & Department etc..
2
HC / 249 / 2025 (RAHISUDDIN KHAN VS THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 12/09/2025 Peti. Seeks habeas corpus to free his minor grandson from respondent No.5’s illegal custody, restore custody to him, & initiate action for the alleged kidnapping by respondent No.5. HELD-Court held that custody can be decided in writ petition and respondent No.5 concealed material facts, relied on dubious documents, & abandoned the child, rendering her custody illegal. Given the petitioner’s stable, long-term care, custody was rightly restored with safeguards. Petition maintainable.
3
CW / 13163 / 2025 (MOHAMMAD SALIM VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 12/09/2025 Pet. seek quashing of the advertisement for new fair price shops in already served areas, alleging violation of State guidelines and right to livelihood. HELD— Allotment of fair price shops is a policy matter within State’s discretion; no vested right exists to oppose new shops. The guidelines and Wadhwa Report are advisory, not enforceable. Applying Art 226 principles, Court found no arbitrariness or illegality, relaxation under the 2025 circular was valid, petitions dismissed.
4
CRLA / 163 / 1997 (DEVI SINGH VS STATE) Date of Order/Judgment: 11/09/2025 Appellant seeks setting aside of his conviction under Section 302 IPC and its conversion to Section 304 Part II with sentence confined to the period undergone. HELD- Court held the incident arose from a sudden quarrel, with no premeditation, intention, or undue advantage; the blow was with the reverse side of an axe, negating murder. Conviction was rightly altered to Section 304 Part II and sentence reduced to the period already undergone.
5
CRLA / 165 / 1995 (STATE OF RAJASTHAN VS BRIJ LAL AND ORS) Date of Order/Judgment: 10/09/2025 Appellant seeks setting aside of the acquittal, contending that the Trial Court erred in discarding the first dying declaration and prays that the respondents be convicted and punished. HELD- Court held that the dying declarations were materially inconsistent, witness’s unreliable, and no clear causal link to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Finding no perversity in the Trial Court’s view, the acquittal required no interference and the appeal was dismissed.
1
CW / 10712 / 2023 (SABUDDIN S/O LATE SH. ALLANOOR VS GIRIRAJ S/O KALU) Date of Order/Judgment: 11/09/2025 Petitioners seek quashing of the RAA and Board orders, contending the respondent’s 44-year-delayed appeal was entertained without condonation under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. HELD- Court held that a time-barred appeal cannot be decided without first condoning delay under Section 5. RAA and Board erred in entertaining a 44-year-delayed appeal without addressing limitation. Their orders were quashed and matter remanded.
2
CW / 5829 / 2020 (KHANDELWAL VAISHYA SAMAJ CHARITABLE TRUST VS THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS)) Date of Order/Judgment: 03/09/2025 Petitioner seeks quashing of the order refusing condonation and prays that delay in uploading Form 10B be condoned, with a direction to grant exemption under Sections 11 and 12 of the Act. HELD-Court held the delay was bona fide and caused by circumstances beyond control, and the rejection was perfunctory. Applying a liberal, justice-oriented approach under Section 119(2)(b) and accepting the uncontroverted affidavit, the delay was condoned and exemption under Sections 11–12 directed.
3
CRLAD / 133 / 2018 (RAMAVTAR VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN THROUGH PP) Date of Order/Judgment: 01/09/2025 Appellant seeks setting aside of his conviction and sentence under Sections 364, 394, and 302 IPC, contending that the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. HELD- the prosecution could not establish a complete and unbroken chain of circumstances; the recoveries were unreliable, the last-seen evidence weak and no forensic link connected the appellant to the offence. Granting benefit of doubt, the conviction and sentence were quashed and the appellant acquitted.
4
CW / 9408 / 2011 (ASHOK KUMAR AND ANR VS A V V N LTD AND ORS) Date of Order/Judgment: 29/08/2025 Pet. assailing the orders passed by Sect. (Admin.), AVVNL, Ajmer, terminating services of Pet. on qualification docs be found false & forged. HELD: Only a person possessing the prescribed qualification is entitled to be appointed even after successfully securing a place in the merit. Even if the effect of the judgments of acquittal delivered by the criminal courts is taken into consideration then also by no stretch it could conferred the qualification of JA. Petitions dismissed.
5
CCP / 173 / 2024 (SHRI MATADIN JANGIR S/O SHRI LAXMINARAYAN JANGIR VS SHRI NAVEEN JAIN, PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVT.) Date of Order/Judgment: 21/08/2025 Petitioners invoked contempt jurisdiction seeking arrears and service benefits under Bhagwan Das Todi (2015), asserting the judgment was in rem and enforceable without filing independent claims. HELD- The Court held contempt cannot substitute adjudication of entitlement; “similarly situated” in Bhagwan Das Todi applied only to employees who had pursued claims before Court/Tribunal. As no willful disobedience was shown, contempt petitions were dismissed, leaving remedy before the Edu. Tribunal.
