The Rajasthan High Court allowed a criminal revision by two heroin accused and directed their release on bail under Section 167(2) CrPC (para 16). The Additional Sessions Judge had treated separate recoveries from four accused as joint possession of 760 grams, a commercial quantity (para 6). The High Court held that separate recoveries cannot be clubbed, so 200 grams each attracted the 60-day charge-sheet limit, and that the later charge-sheet did not defeat the right already exercised (paras 9-13).
In a revision by one of four heroin accused, the Rajasthan High Court set aside, as regards him, a Bhadra trial-court order refusing default bail and directed his release (para 16). The trial court had pooled what was found in the four accused's pockets and called the 760-gram total commercial (para 6). The High Court counted only the 200 grams found on the petitioner, applied the 60-day charge-sheet limit and held that the later charge-sheet did not defeat his claim (paras 9-13).
The Rajasthan High Court dismissed two writ petitions by in-service government doctors against the State's letter/order of 08.01.2022, which counts their service in remote, difficult and rural areas up to 30.09.2021, instead of 30.04.2021, for bonus marks in NEET PG 2021 admissions (paras 2, 37). Fixing the cut-off date is a policy decision: the COVID-19 disruption justified departing from past practice, and hardship to some candidates does not make a date arbitrary (paras 22, 27-28).
The Rajasthan High Court refused to quash an Anti Corruption Bureau FIR against a Patwari under Sections 7 and 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Section 17A bars only enquiry, inquiry or investigation without approval, not registration of an FIR, and demanding and accepting a bribe are not acts relatable to official recommendations or decisions (paras 5-6, 9). The FIR, based on conversations found on phones seized in an earlier trap case, concerned separate bribe transactions and was not a second FIR (paras 8-9).
The Rajasthan High Court refused to cancel the bail of an accused whose 21 earlier cases were not before the Sessions Court. The bail order recorded no claim by him that he had no criminal record; the Sessions Court had relied on the case diary, and the investigating officer had neglected his duty to attach a list of the pending cases. The alleged threats were unsubstantiated, and cancelling bail is a harsh step (paras 5-6, 8-10).
The Rajasthan High Court upheld Regulation 9 of the Rajasthan Real Estate Regulatory Authority Regulations, 2017, which lets RERA have complaints decided by single-member benches, and held that such delegation also flows from Section 81 of the Act (paras 20, 36). Deciding 70 petitions together, it held that RERA prevails over the SARFAESI Act, does not reach mortgages created before the Act unless fraudulent or collusive, and can hear complaints against a bank once it takes Section 13(4) measures (para 36).
On a reference from the Sessions Judge, Pali, a Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court held that a maintenance claimant may file one consolidated application for the previous 12 months' arrears under Section 125(3) CrPC. The Magistrate treats it as 12 separate claims, issues a warrant for each month and may impose up to one month's imprisonment for each month's default. Shahada Khatoon bars only more than one month for a single default (paras 9, 11-12).
The Rajasthan High Court disposed of 847 petitions seeking release of vehicles seized for illegal mining. To keep parity with vehicles seized by the Mining Department, vehicles seized by the police are to be released only after the owner deposits the compounding fee, the compensation determined by the NGT and the cost of mineral, and undertakes not to repeat the offence, because release on mere surety would encourage illegal mining (paras 5-6, 18-20).
A Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur allowed a husband's appeal against a Family Court order that refused to waive the six-month waiting period in a joint petition for divorce by mutual consent and kept the case for 28.02.2022. Following Amardeep Singh v. Harveen Kaur, it held Section 13B(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act directory, waived the period and directed the Family Court to pass the divorce decree (paras 11-14).
The Rajasthan High Court held that a bail application under Section 439 CrPC is not maintainable against an Additional Sessions Judge’s order rejecting an application for default bail under Section 167(2) CrPC (para 7). Bail under Section 439 is a co-extensive power that does not test the lower court’s order, while an order on default bail must be examined for its legality in revisional or inherent jurisdiction (paras 6-7). The second bail application was converted into a criminal revision petition (para 8).
The Rajasthan High Court dismissed a life convict's writ petition seeking amendment of Rule 10B of the Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole Rules, 1958 so that prisoners on emergent parole would also get the Covid-19 extension of parole to 30.06.2021. The Division Bench held that regular parole under Rule 9 and emergent parole under Rule 10A rest on distinct criteria, so the two classes are not similarly placed and Rule 10B is not discriminatory (paras 16-17). It also declined to direct amendment of a statutory rule (paras 19-21).
The Rajasthan High Court quashed the ICAI Examination Committee’s decision cancelling a CA Intermediate candidate’s result over a pre-examination e-mail to its office bearers urging online exams during the pandemic. Regulation 41 of the Chartered Accountants Regulations, 1988 reaches only disorderly behaviour in or near an examination hall or unfair means, and the e-mail had no such nexus. The notice never proposed cancellation; the action was arbitrary and against natural justice (paras 53-54, 57-61).