The Rajasthan High Court quashed a corruption FIR, charge-sheet and proceedings against a former financial adviser of the Jaipur Municipal Corporation. The Anti-Corruption Bureau searched his house without a warrant and arrested him before registering the FIR, without recording the grounds of arrest. His phone was tapped on orders that stated no public-safety ground, came from an officer not shown to be authorised, and never reached the Review Committee (paras 26-28, 36-40).
The Rajasthan High Court refused to test, under Section 482 CrPC, the correctness of a 2014 cheating and forgery FIR over a housing society's land, because it disclosed a cognizable offence (para 16). Finding the investigation still pending after more than eleven years while the investigating officer cited law-and-order duties, the Court directed the Chief Secretary, the Additional Chief Secretary (Home) and the DGP to draft a policy creating separate investigation and law-and-order wings, relying on Prakash Singh (paras 21-32).
The Rajasthan High Court quashed a District Legal Services Authority order that had rejected a minor rape survivor's claim for interim compensation under the Rajasthan Victim Compensation Scheme, 2011 only because she had not produced a certificate from the SHO or Magistrate (paras 7-8, 21). The authority must obtain the certificate itself (para 21). The Court also directed the RSLSA and all DLSAs to adopt a uniform policy that does not make rape survivors fetch such certificates (para 24).
The Rajasthan High Court held that an accused who has consented to a narco-analysis test may withdraw that consent before the test is conducted. Consent once given is not irrevocable, and refusing its withdrawal would amount to a forced test that violates the right against self-incrimination under Article 20(3) and personal liberty under Article 21 (para 18). Applying Selvi v. State of Karnataka, the Court quashed a magistrate's orders permitting the test and refusing the withdrawal (paras 10, 19).
The Rajasthan High Court held that when a woman admits her marriage but denies that the plaintiff is her child, the dispute is one of maternity, on which the statutory presumption of legitimacy says nothing (paras 16-20). Relying on Dipanwita Roy, it held that a person cannot be forced to give a sample but can be directed to take a DNA test, and refusal invites an adverse presumption (para 22). The trial court's refusal to order the test was quashed (para 24).
The Rajasthan High Court held that a daily wager's monthly income in a motor accident claim must be computed for 30 days, not 26, because daily wagers are not paid for weekly offs and are presumed to work every day (paras 12-19). A 'Beldar', however, is unskilled labour under the labour notifications (paras 8-10). The claimant's award was enhanced by Rs.33,040.60 with 6% interest (paras 20-22).
The Rajasthan High Court granted bail to an accused in a 248 kg poppy husk case despite the Section 37 bar, finding prima facie non-compliance with the NDPS (Seizure, Storage, Sampling and Disposal) Rules, 2022: the sample sent for chemical examination was drawn by the police at the spot, not in the presence of a Magistrate, and the bags were neither homogenised nor marked (paras 15-19, 24-28).
The Rajasthan High Court recalled a condition requiring an NDPS convict to deposit a Rs 1 lakh fine as part of the order suspending his sentence. Because of poverty he could not pay, and he stayed in jail despite the release order of 07.10.2025 (paras 9, 12, 15). Following CBI v. Ashok Sirpal, the Court held that a deposit condition the convict cannot comply with may defeat his right of appeal and violate Article 21 (paras 13-14).
The Rajasthan High Court upheld a civil court's refusal to let a plaintiff confront a defence witness with only the signatures on documents while concealing their contents, the so-called ‘pigeon hole’ or ‘window’ method. The Evidence Act does not provide for it, and the Court held it may be allowed only where the witness deposes like a handwriting expert (paras 6.5, 6.13). A repeat application and the closure of cross-examination were also upheld (paras 7.4, 8.1).
The Rajasthan High Court allowed a Muslim wife's appeal and declared her marriage dissolved after a Family Court had refused a decree, although both spouses agreed that the husband had pronounced talaq in three successive tuhrs and that they had signed a mubarat agreement for divorce by mutual consent (paras 2, 14, 26-27). The Family Court's insistence on two witnesses rested on precedents decided under Shia law, which did not govern the parties (para 12). The High Court also issued guidelines for Family Courts in Rajasthan (para 28).
A Rajasthan High Court Division Bench at Jodhpur held that insisting on sureties from a prisoner whose indigence is established makes sanctioned parole illusory and is arbitrary under Articles 14 and 21 (paras 9, 11, 15, 19). Acting on a letter from a life convict who could not take up his fourth parole for want of two sureties, it ordered his release on a personal bond of ₹50,000 and issued six guidelines for parole committees (paras 21-23).
A Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur upheld State notifications that brought Scheduled Area villages and gram panchayats within municipal limits (paras 1, 19). It held that paragraph 5(1) of the Fifth Schedule is exclusionary, not a condition precedent, so the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 2009 applies in Scheduled Areas unless the Governor excludes or modifies it (paras 10.1, 10.6). Pending a parliamentary law under Article 243-ZC(3), it set out a hybrid governance framework (para 18.3).