Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

The Rajasthan High Court granted bail to two Bangladeshi nationals who turned approver in a kidney-transplant racket case, after their evidence was recorded and they had spent over two years in custody (paras 24-25, 31-32). Section 306(4)(b) CrPC keeps an approver in custody until the trial ends, but following the Larger Bench in Noor Taki, the High Court can grant bail in exceptional cases under its inherent powers (paras 11-12). Whether they may leave India is for the Immigration Officer (para 22).

The Rajasthan High Court quashed a dowry case pending since 2013 against a woman's former parents-in-law. She had received Rs. 20 lakh as permanent alimony under the compromise on which her appeal against the divorce decree was dismissed, and had not appeared to testify since 2018. Keeping the prosecution going after settling the dispute only harassed the petitioners and was an abuse of process (paras 11-13, 18).

The Rajasthan High Court held that prior sanction under Section 197 CrPC is not needed for a Magistrate to direct registration of an FIR and investigation under Section 156(3) against public servants; sanction becomes relevant only when the court takes cognizance (paras 6-7). It set aside a Magistrate's refusal to forward a complaint of forged election nomination records against two municipal election officers and remanded it for fresh decision (para 8).

The Rajasthan High Court refused the State's plea to cancel bail granted in 2022 to a former station house officer accused of letting poppy-straw carriers go for a bribe. Cancellation needs post-bail misconduct or supervening circumstances, not a complaint that the gravity of the offence was ignored, and one Bench cannot sit in appeal over a co-ordinate Bench's bail order (paras 9, 11-12, 15).

The Gauhati High Court upheld the finding that three men consciously possessed the ganja seized at New Bongaigaon Railway Station, but held that joint possession of the combined 21.1 kg was not proved (paras 34, 37). Taken separately under the two seizure lists, neither 10.21 kg nor 10.8 kg was a commercial quantity, so the convictions were altered to Section 20(b)(ii)(B) NDPS and the 15-year sentences cut to 3½ years (paras 2, 37).

The Rajasthan High Court held that Section 430 of the BNSS and Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act operate independently, and that an appellate court cannot routinely demand a 20% deposit of the fine as a precondition for suspending a cheque-dishonour sentence (paras 7-9). Applying Jamboo Bhandari, it set aside the deposit condition and directed the Sessions Court to hear the appeal without pre-deposit, preferably within six months (paras 10-12).

The Rajasthan High Court quashed bailable warrants issued after a charge-sheet against four petitioners who had never been arrested during the investigation (para 19). Relying on Siddharth v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI, Justice Baljinder Singh Sandhu held that 'custody' under Section 170 CrPC means only presenting the accused before the Court, and that such accused should not be sent to custody merely so that bail can be considered (paras 10-11, 17).

The Rajasthan High Court set aside an order that treated a complainant's appeal against acquittal as abated on her death. Her legal heirs fall within the definition of 'victim' in Section 2(wa) CrPC and may seek leave to continue the appeal filed under the proviso to Section 372 (paras 20-21). The Court also observed that Section 394 CrPC lets relatives of a dead convict continue an appeal but gives a victim's heirs no such right, and sent its order to the Law Commission (paras 22-24).

The Rajasthan High Court acquitted a Patwari convicted of taking a ₹3,500 bribe, holding that a Section 65B certificate produced more than six years after the recordings were prepared, on the day an ACB officer deposed, could not make the electronic evidence admissible (paras 10.2, 10.12). With the complainant hostile, no work pending with the appellant and the money recovered from the ground, demand and acceptance were not proved (paras 7-9, 12). The Court suggested that the ACB require same-day certificates (para 14).

The Rajasthan High Court struck out the words "in absence of evidence" from the acquittal of two unmarried sisters-in-law in a matrimonial cruelty case and declared them honourably acquitted (para 16). Where the prosecution has miserably failed after full consideration of its evidence, the accused can be said to be "honourably acquitted", and labels such as "benefit of doubt" or "in absence of evidence" would affect their careers (paras 13-15).

The Rajasthan High Court allowed a cheque-bounce accused, who had denied signing the cheque ever since the legal notice, to have the signature examined by a handwriting expert at the Forensic Science Laboratory. Because Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act shifts the burden to the accused, his right to a fair trial and to lead defence evidence deserves stronger protection (paras 13-14). Following Kalyani Baskar, the Magistrate's refusal was quashed (para 17).

Dismissing a State appeal pending since 1996, the Rajasthan High Court upheld the acquittal of two men charged with possessing and supplying opium. The trial court's findings rested on material contradictions, procedural lapses and evidentiary deficiencies, and its view was plausible; given the stringent NDPS Act and its mandatory safeguards, the prosecution had not proved its case with the required certainty (paras 6-7).