A Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court upheld a Single Judge's cancellation of the Rajasthan Police Sub-Inspector/Platoon Commander Examination, 2021, dismissing 17 appeals, including the State's (para 117). Paper leaks through organised gangs and RPSC members, dummy candidates and missing safeguards showed a systemic breach, and two years of investigation had not separated tainted from untainted candidates (paras 95-108). Clearing the physical test and interview did not save selected candidates (paras 109-110).
The Rajasthan High Court refused anticipatory bail to a Dubai-based man whom the State accuses of running a 'digital arrest' fraud that took Rs 80 lakh from an 83-year-old woman (paras 7-8, 16). A compromise signed by his father, not by him, could not help, because organised cyber fraud affects society at large (para 15). Using its inherent powers, the Court told the trial court to consider releasing the Rs 13.40 lakh recovered to the complainant within seven days of her application (para 18).
A Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court held that the State's notification of 12.01.2023, placing the transgender community at serial No. 92 of the OBC list, falls short of the Supreme Court's direction in NALSA to extend all kinds of reservation, because it has benefited no transgender person (paras 20, 31). Treating a separate quota as a policy matter, the Court ordered a Committee study and, meanwhile, 3% additional weightage in State selections and admissions (paras 33-37).
The Rajasthan High Court granted regular bail to two men accused of cutting open an SBI ATM in Didwana-Kuchaman with a gas cutter, holding that pending criminal cases alone do not justify refusing bail (para 8). Treating community service under the new criminal laws as a reformative tool, it required each applicant to plant at least five trees a day for 30 days (para 63), and directed the State to frame an action plan and SOP for rehabilitating offenders (paras 49-50).
The Rajasthan High Court held that freezing a bank account during an investigation is an extraordinary measure, to be used sparingly and only on recorded reasons showing a "live, proximate and direct nexus" between the account and the alleged crime (paras 5.1-5.2). As the FIR put the disputed sum at about ₹30 crores, freezing the petitioners' entire accounts was disproportionate (paras 5-6). The Court kept ₹30 crores frozen and allowed the accounts to operate for all other lawful transactions (para 9).
The Rajasthan High Court quashed a corruption FIR, charge-sheet and proceedings against a former financial adviser of the Jaipur Municipal Corporation. The Anti-Corruption Bureau searched his house without a warrant and arrested him before registering the FIR, without recording the grounds of arrest. His phone was tapped on orders that stated no public-safety ground, came from an officer not shown to be authorised, and never reached the Review Committee (paras 26-28, 36-40).
The Rajasthan High Court refused to test, under Section 482 CrPC, the correctness of a 2014 cheating and forgery FIR over a housing society's land, because it disclosed a cognizable offence (para 16). Finding the investigation still pending after more than eleven years while the investigating officer cited law-and-order duties, the Court directed the Chief Secretary, the Additional Chief Secretary (Home) and the DGP to draft a policy creating separate investigation and law-and-order wings, relying on Prakash Singh (paras 21-32).
The Rajasthan High Court quashed a District Legal Services Authority order that had rejected a minor rape survivor's claim for interim compensation under the Rajasthan Victim Compensation Scheme, 2011 only because she had not produced a certificate from the SHO or Magistrate (paras 7-8, 21). The authority must obtain the certificate itself (para 21). The Court also directed the RSLSA and all DLSAs to adopt a uniform policy that does not make rape survivors fetch such certificates (para 24).
The Rajasthan High Court held that an accused who has consented to a narco-analysis test may withdraw that consent before the test is conducted. Consent once given is not irrevocable, and refusing its withdrawal would amount to a forced test that violates the right against self-incrimination under Article 20(3) and personal liberty under Article 21 (para 18). Applying Selvi v. State of Karnataka, the Court quashed a magistrate's orders permitting the test and refusing the withdrawal (paras 10, 19).
The Rajasthan High Court refused regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS to a man accused of bringing 5.920 kg of hydroponic weed from Bangkok to Jaipur, although the quantity was below the 20 kg commercial quantity he relied on (paras 1-2, 5). Noting that a co-ordinate Bench had refused bail in such cases, it relied on the drug's potency, its value of about Rs 6 crore in the international market and his alleged link with a drug syndicate (para 5).
The Rajasthan High Court held that when a woman admits her marriage but denies that the plaintiff is her child, the dispute is one of maternity, on which the statutory presumption of legitimacy says nothing (paras 16-20). Relying on Dipanwita Roy, it held that a person cannot be forced to give a sample but can be directed to take a DNA test, and refusal invites an adverse presumption (para 22). The trial court's refusal to order the test was quashed (para 24).
The Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur granted bail, on a second application, to a man accused of supplying opium in a CBN Pratapgarh case under Section 8/18 of the NDPS Act; his counsel said nothing was recovered from him (paras 1, 3, 8). Following Akhlak @ Vilsan, the Court counted the opium found with riders of two motorcycles per accused, each below commercial quantity, and noted the possessors' bail and his custody of about a year (paras 6-7).