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 held that Section 8(3) of the RTI Act is a sunset clause that lifts most exemptions after twenty years, not a ground to deny old information (paras 10-11, 13). It quashed an Information Commission order refusing a citizen the joining and retirement records of a college lecturer, deprecated the Commission for weaponizing the provision, and directed that the information be supplied within 60 days (paras 18, 20-21).
Dismissing a State appeal pending since 1997, the Rajasthan High Court upheld the acquittal of a man charged with possessing opium recovered from a room of a house while he stood outside. Possession under the NDPS Act must be conscious and exclusive, and the prosecution never proved that the room belonged to him or was under his control (paras 4-10, 12).
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 quashed, qua the petitioner, all proceedings arising from a 2004 theft FIR in which he was never named. The seven persons charge-sheeted had been acquitted in 2012, no fresh material had surfaced, and nothing was done even after he obtained anticipatory bail in 2020 (paras 4, 4.12). Keeping coercive action alive indefinitely, without progress or material, is manifestly arbitrary and violates the right to speedy justice under Article 21 (para 4.11).
The Rajasthan High Court at Jaipur dismissed an application by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence to cancel the bail granted to two accused in a case involving 3.727 kg of hydroponic weed (paras 1-2, 9). Following the Supreme Court's order in Puranmal Jat, which holds that the Section 37 NDPS restriction on bail does not apply below commercial quantity, it found no merit in the complaint that the trial court had ignored that restriction (paras 6-8).
The Rajasthan High Court set aside a Kota Chief Judicial Magistrate's refusal to issue a no-objection certificate for passport renewal to an accused facing 23 criminal cases, none ending in conviction. Stopping renewal, and so travel abroad, merely because criminal cases are pending violates Article 21, it held, and the passport authority must decide a fresh renewal application under Section 5 of the Passports Act within 30 days (paras 10-11).
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).