The Rajasthan High Court dismissed a second bail application in a murder case filed soon after the first was rejected on merits, noting that the earlier dismissal was not disclosed. A successive application must show a substantial change in circumstances or new material; it cannot be used to re-argue the same case (paras 2-8).
The Rajasthan High Court upheld a Pali magistrate's order allowing the complainant in a cheque dishonour case to exhibit a bank return memo bearing the bank's seal and signature as Exhibit-9, although an unsigned computer-generated memo had already been marked Exhibit-2. This corrected an inadvertent error and did not fill a lacuna (para 8.4). Marking a document as an exhibit is not proof of it, and the accused can still cross-examine and object to its admissibility (paras 9.3, 12).
The Rajasthan High Court held that a DVD and pen drive of CCTV footage filed with the charge-sheet are documents that must be supplied to the accused under Section 207 CrPC. It quashed a Hindaun City trial court order of 31 July 2023 rejecting the accused's application for them (paras 3, 19). The trial court must supply a cloned copy forthwith; where the privacy of a victim or witness is involved, inspection alone may be allowed (paras 18, 20).
The Rajasthan High Court set aside an ex parte decree for specific performance of an agreement to sell farmland, holding that the trial court ordered newspaper publication without the satisfaction Order V Rule 20 of the CPC requires, though the process server had reported that the defendant lived in a named Jaipur colony. Publication alone is not effective service (paras 4.7-5.5, 6.4-7).
A three-judge Larger Bench of the Rajasthan High Court, answering a reference made in 2003, held that widows of railway casual labourers with temporary status who died before appointment to a temporary post are not entitled to pension. Following the Supreme Court's decision in Chanda Devi and Rule 1501 of the Indian Railway Establishment Manual, it upheld the earlier Somati Dai view and dismissed the writ petitions (paras 1, 6-8).
The Rajasthan High Court dismissed revisions by two former Panchayat Samiti members against charges under the Prevention of Corruption Act and for forgery and conspiracy over alleged embezzlement in rural poverty schemes. At the charge stage the court takes the prosecution material at face value; a mini-trial or an assessment of its truth is not permitted (paras 1, 10-12, 17-20).
The Rajasthan High Court held that a GST show cause notice and an adjudication order bearing neither a digital nor a physical signature are non est under Rule 26(3) of the CGST Rules, rejecting the department's plea that an officer's digitally authenticated portal login is enough. It quashed the notice and order behind a demand of Rs 11,76,97,600, the Section 79 recovery notice and the bank attachment (paras 6, 16-17.1, 23-24).
In an interim order, the Rajasthan High Court at Jaipur issued notice on a candidate's challenge to the recruitment for Assistant Professor (English) and allowed the selection process to continue, but directed that the final result of the selected candidates shall not be declared (paras 2-3). The petition is pending; the order records the petitioner's case and decides nothing on merits (para 1).
The Rajasthan High Court refused to cancel a registered sale deed of agricultural land although the buyers had stopped payment of the cheques recorded in it. Where the parties intend title to pass on execution and registration, non-payment of the price only entitles the seller to recover it, not to avoid the sale (paras 20-23). The Court upheld the trial court's decree directing the buyers to deposit Rs 24 lakh with interest for the seller (paras 1, 25).
In an interim order, the Rajasthan High Court restrained the State from dispossessing a government employee from his official quarter in Gandhi Nagar, Jaipur, until the next hearing, while he challenges an order of 03.08.2026 alleging that he had sub-let it (paras 3, 8). The Court gave the State two weeks to reply; it recorded the petitioner's case but decided nothing on the merits (paras 1-7).
Disposing of a public interest petition over the crowds at Ramdevra Temple in Jaisalmer district, a Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court held that healthcare and law and order are the State's responsibility and that it must act to prevent stampedes and contagious disease (para 3). It constituted a committee headed by the Divisional Commissioner, Jodhpur, to provide sanitation, healthcare and law and order for devotees, deciding within a week (para 4).
The Rajasthan High Court upheld a trial court's refusal to order the respondent department to produce the sanction order, Chak Plan and survey sheet for a water pond in a civil suit. Being public documents, copies could be obtained under the applicable law, and discovery under Order XI Rules 12 and 14 CPC cannot ordinarily be invoked merely because it is convenient to obtain evidence through the opposite party (paras 5.3, 5.4, 6).