The Rajasthan High Court held that a daily wager's monthly income in a motor accident claim must be computed for 30 days, not 26, because daily wagers are not paid for weekly offs and are presumed to work every day (paras 12-19). A 'Beldar', however, is unskilled labour under the labour notifications (paras 8-10). The claimant's award was enhanced by Rs.33,040.60 with 6% interest (paras 20-22).
The Rajasthan High Court granted bail to an accused in a 248 kg poppy husk case despite the Section 37 bar, finding prima facie non-compliance with the NDPS (Seizure, Storage, Sampling and Disposal) Rules, 2022: the sample sent for chemical examination was drawn by the police at the spot, not in the presence of a Magistrate, and the bags were neither homogenised nor marked (paras 15-19, 24-28).
The Rajasthan High Court recalled a condition requiring an NDPS convict to deposit a Rs 1 lakh fine as part of the order suspending his sentence. Because of poverty he could not pay, and he stayed in jail despite the release order of 07.10.2025 (paras 9, 12, 15). Following CBI v. Ashok Sirpal, the Court held that a deposit condition the convict cannot comply with may defeat his right of appeal and violate Article 21 (paras 13-14).
The Rajasthan High Court granted bail to a man accused of carrying 6.220 kg of hydroponic weed in a Customs Air Intelligence Unit case at Jaipur International Airport (paras 1, 6). As the recovery was below commercial quantity, the Court held that the Section 37 NDPS restriction on bail did not apply and, following the Supreme Court's order in Puranmal Jat, released him without commenting on the merits (paras 6-9).
The Rajasthan High Court upheld a civil court's refusal to let a plaintiff confront a defence witness with only the signatures on documents while concealing their contents, the so-called ‘pigeon hole’ or ‘window’ method. The Evidence Act does not provide for it, and the Court held it may be allowed only where the witness deposes like a handwriting expert (paras 6.5, 6.13). A repeat application and the closure of cross-examination were also upheld (paras 7.4, 8.1).
The Rajasthan High Court at Jaipur granted bail to a man prosecuted by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence in a hydroponic weed case in which 15.740 kg was allegedly found with a co-accused (paras 1-2). Noting that no contraband was recovered from him, the charge-sheet had been filed, he had no criminal antecedents, the trial would take considerable time and he had spent time in custody, the Court allowed bail without commenting on the merits (para 5).
The Rajasthan High Court allowed a Muslim wife's appeal and declared her marriage dissolved after a Family Court had refused a decree, although both spouses agreed that the husband had pronounced talaq in three successive tuhrs and that they had signed a mubarat agreement for divorce by mutual consent (paras 2, 14, 26-27). The Family Court's insistence on two witnesses rested on precedents decided under Shia law, which did not govern the parties (para 12). The High Court also issued guidelines for Family Courts in Rajasthan (para 28).
A Rajasthan High Court Division Bench at Jodhpur held that insisting on sureties from a prisoner whose indigence is established makes sanctioned parole illusory and is arbitrary under Articles 14 and 21 (paras 9, 11, 15, 19). Acting on a letter from a life convict who could not take up his fourth parole for want of two sureties, it ordered his release on a personal bond of ₹50,000 and issued six guidelines for parole committees (paras 21-23).
A Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur upheld State notifications that brought Scheduled Area villages and gram panchayats within municipal limits (paras 1, 19). It held that paragraph 5(1) of the Fifth Schedule is exclusionary, not a condition precedent, so the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 2009 applies in Scheduled Areas unless the Governor excludes or modifies it (paras 10.1, 10.6). Pending a parliamentary law under Article 243-ZC(3), it set out a hybrid governance framework (para 18.3).
A Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur upheld the Reserve Bank of India's circulars of 14.11.2016 and 17.11.2016, which barred District Central Co-operative Banks from accepting or exchanging demonetised Rs.500 and Rs.1000 notes. The Section 26(2) notification gave no institution an absolute right to accept such notes, the restriction rested on intelligible differentia, and the petitions of seven co-operative societies from Barmer were dismissed (paras 5.9, 5.13, 6).
The Rajasthan High Court set aside adverse remarks, and a direction to initiate disciplinary and legal proceedings, recorded against a police officer by the Special Judge, NDPS Cases, Jhalawar while acquitting the accused, because he was not heard before the remarks were made. On the principle of parity it gave the same relief to another individual named in the remarks who had not challenged them. The disciplinary authority may still examine the matter independently (paras 11, 14).
The Rajasthan High Court quashed an order of the Superintendent of Police, Bharatpur opening a history sheet under Rule 4.9 of the Rajasthan Police Rules, 1965 against a man with a single conviction, because the order rested only on the registration of criminal cases and gave no reasons (para 15). Opening a history sheet requires a reasoned, speaking decision founded on a reasonable belief that the person is habitually addicted to crime; otherwise it is arbitrary and violates Articles 14 and 21 (paras 13-14).