Deciding 105 writ petitions, the Rajasthan High Court held that in cyber fraud investigations the ordinary course is to place a lien on the identifiable disputed amount, not to freeze the whole bank account. It laid down binding principles for the State, required compliance with Sections 106 and 107 of the BNSS and the MHA SOP of 02.01.2026, and directed the DGP and the RBI to issue circulars (paras 31, 45, 48, 53).
The Rajasthan High Court set aside a GST show cause notice, the resulting demand order and a bank recovery notice because none bore a digital or physical signature as Rule 26(3) of the CGST Rules requires. A system reference number tracks a document but does not authenticate it, the Court held, and the taxpayer had also been denied a hearing (paras 7, 10-13).
A Rajasthan High Court Division Bench held that a candidate who cannot prove her reserved-category claim loses only the benefit of reservation, not the right to compete in the open category on merit (para 12). The appellant had scored above the General (Female) cut-off for Junior Engineer but was rejected for not producing an OBC (Non-Creamy Layer) certificate. Her claim as a General candidate must now be examined, against a post kept reserved for her (paras 9, 13-14).
A Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court set aside orders treating 79 properties of a Jodhpur real estate company as benami, because the finding rested substantially on a chartered accountant's search statement that was retracted and never tested by cross-examination (paras 23, 31-32). It remanded the matter to the Initiating Officer, who must consider a later income-tax assessment accepting the source of the same investment; the provisional attachment continues meanwhile (paras 35-36).
The Rajasthan High Court quashed criminal proceedings against a senior official of Hindustan Zinc over a 2005 gas leak at its Chittorgarh plant, holding that criminal liability cannot rest on designation alone (paras 19-34, 85-87). The complaint made only omnibus allegations, the forensic reports contradicted each other, and the private complaint under the Environment (Protection) Act merely duplicated a completed police investigation (paras 39-40, 57-66).
The Rajasthan High Court discharged the registered owner of a motorcycle who had been charged under Section 8/25 of the NDPS Act after two riders were caught with 500 grams of ganja. Section 25 reaches only an owner who "knowingly permits" the vehicle to be used for an offence, and knowledge cannot be presumed from ownership (paras 8-9, 16). The Section 35 presumption of a culpable mental state arises only after the prosecution proves the foundational facts (paras 11, 14).
The Rajasthan High Court set aside the termination of a police constable who became 100% disabled in an accident while on probation. Section 20(4) of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 protects every "employee", including a probationer appointed through regular selection, and requires a shift to another post or a supernumerary post (paras 7-8, 10). He was deemed in service and reinstated, with 50% back wages because he came to court eight years late (para 16).
The Rajasthan High Court quashed all proceedings arising out of a wife's FIR alleging that her husband had used drugs, medicines and black magic to make her marry him and had raped her. As she was his legally wedded wife, the rape offence was not made out under Exception 2 to Section 375 IPC, the other offences were not made out prima facie, and the FIR, lodged around three years after a voluntary registered marriage, was an abuse of process (paras 16-18).
The Rajasthan High Court granted bail to a pickup driver held with 162.800 kg of poppy husk, finding prima facie total non-compliance with Section 42 of the NDPS Act: police had received secret information before the night interception but sent nothing to superior officers. With the accused in custody for about two and a half years and charges not yet framed, the Court held the Section 37 twin conditions prima facie satisfied (paras 7-10).
The Rajasthan High Court suspended the ten-year sentence of a Jaipur medical-store owner convicted under the NDPS Act, finding prima facie that the samples sent for testing were not drawn before a Magistrate under Section 52A (paras 9, 11-12). Because the same police constable was shown present at two searches during overlapping times, it asked the Director General of Police to inquire (paras 15, 17).
The Rajasthan High Court directed a bank to lift a debit freeze on an account holder's entire account, imposed over a disputed transaction of Rs 560, and to keep a lien only on that amount. Freezing must meet legality, necessity and proportionality; where the suspect amount can be segregated, freezing the whole account is excessive and turns investigation into punishment (paras 3, 6-9, 12-13).
The Rajasthan High Court granted bail to two Bangladeshi nationals who turned approver in a kidney-transplant racket case, after their evidence was recorded and they had spent over two years in custody (paras 24-25, 31-32). Section 306(4)(b) CrPC keeps an approver in custody until the trial ends, but following the Larger Bench in Noor Taki, the High Court can grant bail in exceptional cases under its inherent powers (paras 11-12). Whether they may leave India is for the Immigration Officer (para 22).