The Rajasthan High Court held that a selected candidate cannot be denied appointment merely because an FIR was lodged against him after the result, when the police later filed a negative final report finding the case false (paras 11-12, 18). Under the State's 2019 circular on character verification, such a candidate is eligible under clause 2(i), and the disqualification in clause 1(i) applies only to live accusations or convictions (paras 14-15, 19).
The Rajasthan High Court discharged three accused of organised crime under Section 111 of the BNS in a cyber-fraud case, holding that the charge needs prima facie material of an organised crime syndicate, continuing unlawful activity and the accused's nexus with it (paras 12-13, 17). A single night's recovery of other people's bank documents showed at most cheating or conspiracy (paras 14, 17). The remaining charges go to a Magistrate (para 19).
The Rajasthan High Court granted bail to a man accused of passing information on military establishments to Pakistani handlers, because nothing on record showed that written grounds of arrest were ever given to him (paras 4, 16, 23). Following Mihir Rajesh Shah, it held that oral disclosure is not compliance and that the prosecutor and the remand Magistrate had also failed to check (paras 17-18). It ordered action against the investigating officer and the prosecutor (para 29).
The Rajasthan High Court refused the State's plea to cancel bail granted in 2022 to a former station house officer accused of letting poppy-straw carriers go for a bribe. Cancellation needs post-bail misconduct or supervening circumstances, not a complaint that the gravity of the offence was ignored, and one Bench cannot sit in appeal over a co-ordinate Bench's bail order (paras 9, 11-12, 15).
The Rajasthan High Court transferred to the CBI the investigation of a cyber-fraud FIR against young women working at a call centre, finding prima facie that police picked up ten women from their homes the evening before the FIR and kept them at the police station overnight (paras 14, 28, 32). Missing CCTV footage, inconsistent diary entries and arrest memos suggested fabrication, and the trial was deferred despite the charge-sheet (paras 12-13, 33).
A Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur dismissed a son's intra-court appeal against his eviction from his father's house. It held that a Maintenance Tribunal under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 has an implicit, discretionary power to order eviction where needed to protect a senior citizen (paras 9-10). The father's ownership, the harassment and the criminal case between them justified the order (paras 8, 11-13).
The Rajasthan High Court held that police who parade arrested persons, photograph them in degrading conditions or circulate their images on social media impose a punishment the law does not recognise (paras 13, 17-18). On a petition by Jaisalmer villagers whose post-arrest photographs were posted by the police, it declared police-orchestrated social-media condemnation a form of punishment without legal sanction and directed that 'Do's and Don'ts' be displayed at every police station (para 18).
The Rajasthan High Court quashed the refusal to renew a Jaipur hotelier's passport because an FIR under Sections 498A and 406 IPC was pending against him. Registration of an FIR or pendency of such a case is not a valid ground to refuse renewal, and denial violates Article 21 (para 18). The passport office must reconsider afresh, and any risk of absconding can be met by conditions, including an undertaking not to travel abroad without the court's permission (paras 20-22).
The Rajasthan High Court held that Section 430 of the BNSS and Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act operate independently, and that an appellate court cannot routinely demand a 20% deposit of the fine as a precondition for suspending a cheque-dishonour sentence (paras 7-9). Applying Jamboo Bhandari, it set aside the deposit condition and directed the Sessions Court to hear the appeal without pre-deposit, preferably within six months (paras 10-12).
The Rajasthan High Court quashed bailable warrants issued after a charge-sheet against four petitioners who had never been arrested during the investigation (para 19). Relying on Siddharth v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI, Justice Baljinder Singh Sandhu held that 'custody' under Section 170 CrPC means only presenting the accused before the Court, and that such accused should not be sent to custody merely so that bail can be considered (paras 10-11, 17).
The Rajasthan High Court held that Section 8(3) of the RTI Act is a sunset clause that lifts most exemptions after twenty years, not a ground to deny old information (paras 10-11, 13). It quashed an Information Commission order refusing a citizen the joining and retirement records of a college lecturer, deprecated the Commission for weaponizing the provision, and directed that the information be supplied within 60 days (paras 18, 20-21).
Dismissing a State appeal pending since 1997, the Rajasthan High Court upheld the acquittal of a man charged with possessing opium recovered from a room of a house while he stood outside. Possession under the NDPS Act must be conscious and exclusive, and the prosecution never proved that the room belonged to him or was under his control (paras 4-10, 12).