A Rajasthan High Court Division Bench set aside the conviction of four men sentenced to life imprisonment for gang rape under the IPC and the POCSO Act, and acquitted them (paras 1, 57). It held the FIR hit by Section 162 CrPC because the complainant's first report at a police chowki was never produced, found her minority unproved, and rejected the DNA report because the chain of custody of the samples was not established (paras 19-20, 29, 44).
The Rajasthan High Court dismissed four appeals by ten accused in an NIA case over explosive material allegedly seized from a car at Nimbahera in 2022, upholding the order of 31 July 2024 framing charges (paras 2, 59-60). An accused's absence from the car or the lack of recovery from him does not answer an alleged prior conspiracy at the charge stage; the evidence is for trial. The dismissal is not a finding of guilt (para 60).
The Rajasthan High Court closed a batch of public interest litigations on prison conditions, running since 2008, holding that its directions had produced substantial reforms but that an undertrial’s alleged murder in the High Security Jail, Ajmer showed the need for perpetual vigilance (paras 11-12). It constituted a State-Level Monitoring Committee headed by the District Judges and gave directions, mostly time-bound, on CCTV cameras, phone searches, guards, women’s prisons and a custodial death relief scheme (paras 13-14).
The Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur disposed of AU Small Finance Bank's writ petition with a direction to the Superintendent of Police, Sri Ganganagar and the SHO, Kesrisingpur to act immediately, in accordance with law, to restore possession of a mortgaged property to the bank (paras 6, 8). The bank said it had taken possession under the SARFAESI Act with police aid on 5 May 2026 and that the borrowers later broke in (paras 2-3). Action is expected within fifteen days of receipt of a certified copy (para 7).
The Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur has directed that a candidate in the Class-IV Employee Direct Recruitment-2024, who mentioned her gender as ‘Third Gender’ instead of ‘Female’ in her form by mistake, be considered as ‘Female’ (paras 2, 4). The Staff Selection Board said the correction came too late, but could not dispute that she is a female candidate (para 3). The Court allowed her writ petition on the peculiar facts and made clear that the order “shall not be treated as a precedent in any other case” (para 4).
The Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur granted bail to the owner of a firm supplying scientific apparatus, accused in a CBN case over 2.021 kg of MD recovered from a co-accused (paras 2, 8, 12). Prima facie, his alleged role was confined to supplying scientific apparatus in the course of his business, his bona fides could not be ruled out, and nothing was recovered from him (para 10). For the limited purpose of bail, the Court held the Section 37 twin conditions satisfied (para 11).
The Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur directed the Jodhpur power distribution company to pay a contractor within six weeks for an underground 11 KV line that grew from about 1 km to about 3 km after the Air Force objected to the original route (paras 2, 6). The respondents could not dispute that the Supreme Court's M/s Surya Constructions decision covered the claim (para 4). As the work was completed in 2023 and left unpaid for nearly three years, the amount carries 6% annual interest (para 7).
The Rajasthan High Court stayed a 2013 conviction under Sections 366, 451 and 323/34 IPC until the appellant's criminal appeal is decided, so that he may contest the upcoming Panchayat elections if otherwise eligible (para 6). Treating the power as extraordinary, the Court examined the record and found that the woman's testimony needed further critical appreciation and a key witness was not produced (paras 5-5.3). It decided only the stay application; the appeal, pending since 2013, is yet to be heard (paras 2-3, 6).
The Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur allowed two connected writ petitions by 19 Nursing Officers and ANMs seeking to have their earlier contractual service counted, directing the State to compute their service from the initial temporary, ad hoc or urgent appointment and grant continuity of service for all purposes after verifying each petitioner's documents and eligibility (paras 1, 4-5). Applying the Division Bench ratio in Dr. Paritosh Ujjwal, it rejected the State's plea that recruitment through drop boxes, without a Selection Committee, set them apart (paras 3-4).
The Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur granted bail to two men accused in a case over 379.230 kg of poppy straw, a commercial quantity seized from two co-accused (paras 5, 8). Prima facie, nothing apart from the co-accused's statements connected them with the contraband: no call detail records or location details were collected, and nothing was recovered from them (paras 5-6). For the limited purpose of bail, the Court held the twin conditions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act satisfied (para 6).
The Rajasthan High Court, at Jodhpur, has held that a widow's request to have her son considered in her place for compassionate appointment cannot be rejected merely on the ground of delay and laches when the Department never decided her own application (para 6). Her 2021 application under the Rules of 1996 was still pending on the day of the order (para 5). Any delay was attributable to the Department, and the Rules provide no automatic rejection (para 6). The authorities must act within two months (para 7).
A Full Bench of the Rajasthan High Court answered a reference on whether prisoners convicted under Section 376 IPC or the POCSO Act can be shifted to an Open Air Camp (para 1). Reading ‘ordinarily’ in Rule 3 of the Rajasthan Prisoners Open Air Camp Rules, 1972, it held that they are not totally ineligible but have no automatic right; the Advisory Committee must assess each case with reasons (paras 14-15). Three Division Bench rulings were overruled (para 16).