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
CRLMB / 11482 / 2025 (SANDEEP SINGH ALIAS SONU VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 14/10/2025 Applicant seeks waiver of the Registry’s objection requiring impleadment of the victim in the POCSO bail application, asserting that no provision mandates adding the victim or guardian as a party. HELD- the Court held that the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 does not require impleadment, but Sections 39–40 and Rule 4 mandate informing them of proceedings and securing their right to be heard; the objection is waived and the application allowed.
3
CW / 10763 / 2025 (GLOBAL PHARMACY COLLEGE VS THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 14/10/2025 Petitioner seeks quashing of ban on NOCs and issuance of NOC for B.Pharmacy. HELD- that the State lacks legislative competence under the Pharmacy Act, 1948 to impose a blanket prohibition through executive instructions, that such action infringes Articles 14 and 19(1)(g), disregards the regulatory primacy of the PCI, and is discriminatory in confining the ban to private colleges as it fails the test of reasonableness. The order was set aside and the writ petition allowed.
4
CRLA / 729 / 2000 (BHIMA VS STATE OF RAJ.) Date of Order/Judgment: 09/10/2025 Appellants seek reversal of conviction under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, asserting that the prosecution proved no incriminating circumstance. HELD- the Court held that motive was unproved, last-seen evidence absent, the extra-judicial confession improbable, recoveries lacking exclusivity under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, and medical evidence inconclusive, rendering the circumstantial chain legally infirm; the conviction was set aside and the appeal stands allowed.
5
CRLA / 10 / 2002 (SMT. SAMPAT BAI VS STATE) Date of Order/Judgment: 09/10/2025 Appellants seek reversal of conviction u/Sec 302/34 IPC on the ground that the prosecution failed to prove poisoning or establish a complete circumstantial chain. HELD- that none of the essential elements of a poisoning case—motive, proof of death by poison, possession of poison, or opportunity to administer it—were established; the evidentiary chain was incomplete, the medical and investigative findings were inconclusive, and the conviction could not be upheld; the appeals were allowed.
1
CRLMP / 3958 / 2025 (SWAPAN KUMAR S/O LATE SHRI BIJAN KUMAR RAI, VS THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 04/11/2025 Petitioner seeks quashing of the prosecution sanction under Section 528 BNSS, alleging it was mechanically issued without application of mind or evaluation of material required by Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. HELD-that sanction defects matter only if they cause failure of justice. Validity was tested at trial, no prejudice was shown, trial had advanced, and any pre-trial interference would defeat the statute’s object, so the petition was dismissed.
2
CW / 12831 / 2025 (JAGDISH PRASAD SHARMA S/O SH. RAMLAL VS JAIPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY) Date of Order/Judgment: 04/11/2025 Petitioner seeks quashing of the JDA notice under Sections 32 and 34A of the JDA Act, the sealing of his marriage garden, and the Tribunal’s affirming order. HELD-that orders of the JDA Tribunal lie only under Article 227, making a writ under Article 226 not maintainable. It further found that Section 17 of the JDA Act mandates prior development permission, which was absent, the sealing was lawful, and the petition was dismissed. JMC license cannot override required JDA permissions.
3
CW / 14072 / 2025 (JAI SINGH SON OF RAM SINGH VS RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT) Date of Order/Judgment: 31/10/2025 Petitioners seek eligibility for promotion under Clause 4-A of the 2002 Rules. HELD-that Clause 4-A is grade-based, but ACP gives only financial up gradation and no functional promotion or Level-8 status, and that a probationer without confirmation cannot claim eligibility, lacking actual promotion and required status, petitioners were held ineligible and the writ petition was dismissed. Substantive appointment to feeder post is required and pay-level parity cannot confer eligibility.
4
CW / 15729 / 2025 (DR. BALRAJ SINGH S/O SH. RANBIR SINGH VS CHANCELLOR, SRI KARAN NARENDRA AGRICULTURE UNIVERSITY) Date of Order/Judgment: 14/10/2025 Petitioner seeks quashing of the suspension order under Section 25-A of the SKN Agriculture University Act, 2013. HELD- that the suspension lacked mandatory consultation with the State Government, was unsupported by notice, contradicted Section 9(2), and had no lawful basis in the Committee’s terms, thereby breaching statutory safeguards; the order was quashed, the enquiry allowed to continue and the petitioner restrained from exercising statutory powers pending its outcome.
5
CW / 9095 / 2019 (KRITESH OSWAL S/O SOHAN LAL VS UNION OF INDIA) Date of Order/Judgment: 13/10/2025 Petitioners seek enforcement of Section 22 of the FSS Act, 2006 to prohibit manufacture, sale, distribution and import of Genetically Modified (GM) food. HELD- that absence of Section 22 regulations creates a statutory vacuum, GEAC approvals under the 1989 Rules cannot replace FSSAI standards, and unregulated GM food implicates Article 21. Union and FSSAI must frame rules within six months, no GM food activity is permitted meanwhile, and Rule 6(7) is upheld in view of health concerns. .
