CRLMB / 13513 / 2020 (JUGAL VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 25/11/2020 Petitioner arrested for offences punishable under Section 392 read with Section 34 of IPC-Application seeking bail as there exists no criminal antecedent of petitioner-Held-Bail application allowed with the direction that though antecedent alone is not a ground of rejecting or accepting a bail-However, all trial courts shall, while allowing or disallowing any regular or anticipatory bail application, give details of antecedents, if any, and in case of none being there, record the same.
2
CRLAD / 65 / 2019 (SALIM VS STATE) Date of Order/Judgment: 02/11/2020 Specific charge under Section 370(4) IPC was not framed against the accused-appellant and further, even after recording statement of victim on oath regarding the said offence, charge was not amended, but, appellant has been convicted for the offence under Section 370(4) IPC and has been awarded life imprisonment on that count-Held-An accused facing trial cannot be convicted and sentenced for a graver offence, of which no charge has been framed against him-Matter remanded back to trial court.
3
CW / 9572 / 2020 (DEVI LAL BOCHLYA VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 02/11/2020 Posting order (based on recommendation of elected representative) of petitioner, was cancelled and subsequent order whereby, petitioner has been transferred, challenged as arbitrary-Held-Transfer orders must be issued by Administrative Head after application of mind, without being influenced by recommendations made by elected representatives-Writ petition dismissed as petitioner himself had adopted same means, which he is seeking to question and has been beneficiary of a similar recommendation.
4
CRLA / 895 / 2014 (OGAD SINGH VS STATE) Date of Order/Judgment: 13/10/2020 Appeal by accused against conviction under Section 302 IPC for murdering his own daughter-Held-Failure by appellant to offer any explanation regarding murder of his daughter in his house and subsequent carrying of her severed head and blood stained sword to police outpost leads to a presumption regarding his culpability for the offence-Statement by accused to police, divulging motive for murder of his daughter was not confessional in nature and therefore, admissible in evidence-Appeal rejected.
5
SAW / 171 / 2020 (PUSHKARLAL VS ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, MAHARANA PRATAP SMARAK, UDAIPUR) Date of Order/Judgment: 15/09/2020 Whether a Pujari falls within the definition of ‘workman’ as services of one pujari was terminated without complying with Section 25F of Industrial Disputes Act-Held-For determination as to whether an employee falls within the definition of ‘workman’ or not, test is what is the main work assigned to him-Puja by Pujari is an application of his knowledge which cannot be considered to be work specified in Section 2(s) of Act of 1947, thus, a Pujari is not a workman-Appeal dismissed in limine.
1
CRLMP / 3545 / 2020 (RAMSWAROOP S/O SHRI BHERULAL VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 06/11/2020 Petitioner-victim whose statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. has been recorded against his will, can he move an application before the Magistrate under Section 164 Cr.P.C for getting his statement recorded in support of the complaint made by him?-Held- Magistrate does not have the power to record the statement of a person unsponsored by the Investigating Agency. Only the Investigating Agency can move an appropriate application for recording the statement of any witnesses. Petition dismissed.
2
CRLW / 643 / 2020 (GOVINDA VERMA S/O SHRI MANGALCHAND VERMA VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 02/11/2020 Petition seeking emergent parole under Rule 10A of Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole Rules, 1958 moved before the delivery date of the wife of petitioner-However, matter could not be taken up by court-Meanwhile, wife delivered the child-Petitioner seeking parole to attend the new born child-Held-Essential aspect for emergent parole is to see if there is an involvement of humanitarian consideration-There are certain inherent basic human rights even for an imprisoned person. Petition allowed.
3
CRLMP / 397 / 2020 (JULFI SINGH S/O SHRI JAWAHAR SINGH B/C GURJAR VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 23/10/2020 Petitions relating to prayer for release of tractors and trolleys, which have been seized by Police Authorities/Mining Authorities/Forest Officials for various reasons-The Hon’ble High Court relied on Asharam and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan (2020) 2 RLW(Raj) 1624, wherein it was held that a vehicle should not be allowed to get rusted in Police Station and ought to be released and laid down the conditions before release of the seized vehicles-Thus, Petitions allowed-Vehicles ordered to be released
4
CW / 11435 / 2020 (PRAGYAN BANSAL SON OF SH. D K BANSAL VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 12/10/2020 Petitioners undergoing internship as part of their MBBS Course submitted that, they should be declared eligible to participate for the post of Medical Officer-Held-Minimum requirement for a person to practice in Medicine is that they must complete their internship and be registered with the Medical Council permanently-Those who have passed MBBS out of India are eligible when they complete their internship in India and also pass the exam conducted by the Board-Therefore, Writ Petition dismissed.
5
CW / 1078 / 2020 (DR. JAHNVI VIJAY DAUGHTER OF DR. SANDEEP VIJAY VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 08/10/2020 Petition filed seeking direction to cancel NEET (P.G.), 2020 examination, because of defective computers provided at a test center or to give bonus marks to the petitioner- Held, considering the facts, it cannot be inferred that technical failure has resulted into such a situation where the entire examination is required to be redone. The compensatory measures, adopted by respondents, did mitigate the situation, which had arisen due to technical failure- Writ Petition dismissed.
