(461) RAMLAL MEENA Vs. UNION OF INDIA[RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT] 30-09-2026 Border Security Force Act, 1968 — Section 19(b) and Section 62 — Border Security Force Rules, 1969 — Rule 45 — Absence without leave — Procedure on hearing of charge — Admission of overstaying leave does not obligate the Commandant to summarily award punishment — Remand for preparation of Record of Evidence and trial by Summary Security Force Court is well within the Commandant's powers under Rule 45(2) — Inquiry under Section 62 and hearing under Rule 45 operate at different stages for distinct India Law Library Docid # 2454850
(462) MAJOR MANMOHAN SINGH RATHORE (RETD.) Vs. UNION OF INDIA[RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT] 30-09-2026 Territorial Army Rules, 1948 — Rule 20A Proviso — Pre-Commission Training — Exemption claimed by retired Army Major — Nature of provision — Proviso to Rule 20A enables Director General or Additional Director General of Territorial Army to grant exemption from Pre-Commission Training if an ex-officer has undergone adequate military training in previous service — Held, the provision is not mandatory but purely discretionary — A candidate cannot claim exemption from Pre-Commission Training as a mat India Law Library Docid # 2454851
(463) KAMLESH KUMAR Vs. THE DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, SIROHI[RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT] 30-09-2026 Service Law — Probationer — Termination of services — Motive versus Foundation — Disciplinary inquiry — Employer is entitled to assess the work, conduct, and overall suitability of a probationer during the probation period — Verification or preliminary examination of a complaint does not convert the suitability assessment into a disciplinary proceeding — Where no finding of misconduct is recorded against the employee and the employer merely considers it undesirable to continue the probationer, t India Law Library Docid # 2454852
(464) DIRECTOR, SECONDARY EDUCATION GOVERNMENT OF RAJASTHAN, BIKANER AND ANOTHER Vs. AJAY PAL SINGH AND ANOTHER[RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT] 30-09-2026 Limitation Act, 1963 — Section 5 — Condonation of delay — Appeal by State Authorities — 207 days delay — Mechanical explanation attributing delay to departmental procedures, moving files, and obtaining inter-departmental approvals — Held, administrative lethargy, red tape, and bureaucratic laxity do not constitute "sufficient cause" for condonation of delay — Law of limitation binds the Government equally as any private litigant, and no separate or lenient standard can be applied to State author India Law Library Docid # 2454853
(465) THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND OTHERS Vs. MAHENDRA KUMAR AND OTHERS[RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT] 30-09-2026 Limitation Act, 1963 — Section 5 — Condonation of delay — Delay of 250 days by State in filing appeal — State attributed delay to procedural red tape, administrative approvals, and inter-departmental communications — Held, mechanical and nonchalant explanations devoid of day-to-day particulars cannot justify delay — Government departments possess competent personnel and do not enjoy a separate or relaxed limitation period — Condonation is an exception and not an anticipated benefit for the State India Law Library Docid # 2454854
(466) VANDANA MATHUR Vs. RAJASTHAN BOARD OF MUSLIM WAQF[RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT] 30-09-2026 Limitation Act, 1963 — Section 5 — Waqf Act, 1995 — Section 83(9) — Condonation of delay — Filing of appeal — Appellant inadvertently filed a revision petition challenging an ex-parte eviction judgment and decree instead of filing an appeal under Section 83(9) of the Waqf Act — Appellant subsequently filed the appeal along with an undertaking to withdraw the pending revision petition — Court held that bona fide mistake and sufficient cause were demonstrated — Delay of 44 days in filing the appea India Law Library Docid # 2454855
(467) AMIT KUMAR Vs. STATE OF U.P. & ANOTHER[ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT] 30-09-2026 Penal Code, 1860 — Sections 375 and 90 — Rape versus Consensual sex — False promise of marriage versus Breach of promise — To constitute rape on the pretext of a false promise to marry, the prosecution must establish that the accused had no intention of fulfilling the promise from its inception and made it solely to induce consent for sexual relations. A mere breach of promise due to unforeseen circumstances or subsequent failure does not amount to a misconception of fact under Section 90. Where India Law Library Docid # 2454902
(468) PANKAJ KUMAR Vs. STATE OF U.P.[ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT] 30-09-2026 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — Section 482 — Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — Sections 64(2), 333, and 351(3) — Anticipatory Bail — Rape — Alleged incident occurred two months prior to lodging of FIR without initial allegations of rape, which were added later during investigation — Contradictions in victim's statement recorded under Section 183 BNSS indicated a consensual relationship that turned sour — Ocular version lacked medical corroboration — Applicant had no criminal antecedent India Law Library Docid # 2454886
(469) PRADYUMAN DHANAK Vs. STATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS[ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT] 30-09-2026 Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — Sections 332(b), 70(2), 351(3) — Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 — Section 5(g)/6 — Regular bail — Allegation of gang rape of minor — Zero FIR lodged after unexplained delay exceeding one month — Age determination disputed as Class 7th school record was not from the school first attended and no radiological examination was conducted — Medico-legal report failed to corroborate rape — Applicant having no criminal antecedents and languishing in India Law Library Docid # 2454887
(470) COMMITTEE OF MANAGEMENT, TULSI SMARAK SAMITI AND ANOTHER Vs. THE STATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER[ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT] 30-09-2026 Societies Registration Act, 1860 (as applicable in U.P.) — Section 12-D(1)(c) — Cancellation of registration — Allegations of fraud or misrepresentation — Necessary ingredients — Cancellation under Section 12-D(1)(c) requires the authority to specifically identify a false or fraudulent representation made to procure registration or renewal and establish a direct nexus between such misrepresentation and the grant — Mere historical discrepancies, membership disputes, or an administrative reassessm India Law Library Docid # 2454889
(471) IMTEYAJ Vs. STATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER[ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT] 30-09-2026 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — Section 482 — Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 — Sections 3(1) and 19(4) — Anticipatory Bail — Solitary case in gang chart — Parity — Applicant was implicated under the Gangsters Act based on a single case in the gang chart, wherein he was already enlarged on anticipatory bail — Past criminal history involved petty cases without any heinous offences — Co-accused persons identically situated were already granted a India Law Library Docid # 2454892
(472) BHARATHRAJ Vs. STATE OF U.P. AND 5 OTHERS[ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT] 30-09-2026 Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 226 — Delay and laches — Exercise of extraordinary writ jurisdiction — Maintainability — Writ petition filed after fourteen years challenging mutation orders passed under Section 34 of U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 — Held, although no statutory limitation is prescribed under Article 226, relief is discretionary and equitable — A litigant who sleeps over rights and approaches the Court belatedly without adequate explanation cannot invoke extraordinary jurisdict India Law Library Docid # 2454893
(473) COMMITTEE OF MANAGEMENT, TULSI SMARAK SAMITI LUCKNOW AND ANOTHER Vs. THE STATE OF U.P. AND 2 OTHERS[ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT] 30-09-2026 Societies Registration Act, 1860 (as applicable in U.P.) — Sections 12-D, 13-A and 13-B — Authority of District Magistrate — Transfer of society property — District Magistrate directed vesting and management of petitioner-society's property in another governmental body — Held, the Act confers no independent power upon the District Magistrate to divest a society of its property or transfer management merely because disputes exist — Under Section 13-B, the District Magistrate can only apply to the India Law Library Docid # 2454894
(474) RAMDATT YADAV Vs. STATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER[ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT] 30-09-2026 Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — Section 3(1)(r) — Essential ingredients — Place within public view — Discharge — To constitute an offence under Section 3(1)(r), intentional insult or intimidation must be committed with the intent to humiliate an SC/ST member specifically on the ground of caste and must occur at a place within "public view". Where the incident admittedly occurred inside a private room without the presence of independent public witn India Law Library Docid # 2454896
(475) MANOJ KUMAR PASWAN Vs. STATE OF U.P. AND 4 OTHERS[ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT] 30-09-2026 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — Section 173(4) — Rejection of application seeking registration of FIR — Complainant alleged police personnel extorted money under threat of false implication in a murder case — Special Judge rejected application — Held, no specific allegation was made as to which accused public servant actually received the demanded amount — Allegations were vague and moved as a pressure tactic against police personnel — Material on record and inquiry report justified r India Law Library Docid # 2454898
(476) SURESH YADAV AND ANOTHER Vs. STATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER[ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT] 30-09-2026 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — Section 528 — Anticipatory bail — Duration of protection — Trial Court granted anticipatory bail for a limited period of 30 days after charge-sheet was submitted and cognizance taken — Held, restricting anticipatory bail to 30 days without specific findings compels accused to seek fresh interim bail, causing unnecessary harassment — Anticipatory bail, once granted, must normally continue till conclusion of trial subject to appropriate conditions — There India Law Library Docid # 2454900
(477) R. PAL AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF U.P.[ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT] 30-09-2026 Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 302 and 307 read with Section 34 — Evidentiary value of injured eyewitness and related witnesses — Conviction for murder and attempt to murder — Testimony of an injured eyewitness enjoys a special status and cannot be discarded lightly, as his presence is independently established by the injuries sustained — Minor discrepancies do not justify rejecting such testimony — Relationship of eyewitnesses to the deceased requires careful scrutiny but is not a ground for India Law Library Docid # 2454901
(478) GHULAM MOHAMMAD SHEIKH Vs. MR. VIJAY KUMAR BIDHURI AND ANOTHER[JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND LADAKH HIGH COURT AT SRINAGAR] 30-09-2026 Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 — Scope of jurisdiction — Enlargement of writ court's direction impermissible — Writ Court directed the Deputy Commissioner to consider awarding compensation under the Land Acquisition Act based on a revenue report — Respondents carried out spot demarcation, rectified the revenue records under Section 32 of the Land Revenue Act, and passed a detailed speaking order rejecting acquisition as the road was private — Held, a contempt court cannot enlarge the scope of the India Law Library Docid # 2454943
(479) KHURSHEED AHMAD KHAN Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS[JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND LADAKH HIGH COURT AT SRINAGAR] 30-09-2026 Constitution of India — Article 226(2) — Territorial Jurisdiction — Writ petition challenging acceptance of voluntary retirement — Petitioner, a BSF Constable, submitted retirement application and impugned order accepting voluntary retirement was passed at Tura, Meghalaya — Held, territorial jurisdiction under Article 226 is contingent upon the cause of action, wholly or in part, arising within the local limits of the High Court — Entire cause of action arose outside Jammu and Kashmir — High Cou India Law Library Docid # 2454944
(480) MUSHTAQ AHMAD WAGAY AND OTHERS Vs. UT OF J&K AND OTHERS[JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND LADAKH HIGH COURT AT SRINAGAR] 30-09-2026 Constitution of India — Articles 14 and 16 — Service Law — Casual and Seasonal Labourers — Claim for re-engagement — Absence of vested right — Petitioners engaged as casual labourers were discontinued and later sought re-engagement based on their past engagement — Held, casual engagement is purely temporary, need-based, and creates no legal or statutory right to seek re-engagement — Granting such relief would bypass the constitutional mandate of equal opportunity in public employment and deprive India Law Library Docid # 2454945