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 Bombay High Court at Kolhapur allowed a mother's claim to family pension after her unmarried son died in service. The claim had been rejected because she had three surviving daughters, so the son was not the ‘only surviving child’ under Explanation I to Rule 116(16)(b)(iv) of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982. The Court read those words as meaning that no other child is able to support the parent, and quashed the rejection (paras 23, 25, 33-34).
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).
Bench of Justices Anoop Chitkara and Sukhvinder Kaur holds that confiscated vehicles in NDPS cases need not rot in police compounds; relies on Bishwajit Dey and Denash to construct a detailed procedure for interim release.
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).
The Rajasthan High Court quashed a dowry case pending since 2013 against a woman's former parents-in-law. She had received Rs. 20 lakh as permanent alimony under the compromise on which her appeal against the divorce decree was dismissed, and had not appeared to testify since 2018. Keeping the prosecution going after settling the dispute only harassed the petitioners and was an abuse of process (paras 11-13, 18).
The Rajasthan High Court held that the State cannot withhold a retired employee's pension and retiral dues because his service book is incomplete, since keeping it up to date is the department's own duty (paras 12-13). It directed release of a retired patwari's benefits with interest within 60 days, warned that the salaries of the District Collector and the Tehsildar would be withheld on default, and imposed Rs 50,000 costs recoverable from the officer responsible (paras 18-20).
The Rajasthan High Court held that prior sanction under Section 197 CrPC is not needed for a Magistrate to direct registration of an FIR and investigation under Section 156(3) against public servants; sanction becomes relevant only when the court takes cognizance (paras 6-7). It set aside a Magistrate's refusal to forward a complaint of forged election nomination records against two municipal election officers and remanded it for fresh decision (para 8).
The Rajasthan High Court held that a candidate released on probation cannot be refused compassionate appointment because of the conviction, since Section 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act removes any disqualification attached to it and the State's own 2019 circular treats such candidates as eligible (paras 6-8). It set aside a committee's rejection of a deceased Class-IV employee's son and ordered fresh consideration (para 10).