[2023/RJJP/003726]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 1748/2023
Roopsingh @ Rooparam S/o Lekhram, Aged About 40 Years, R/o
Dhegariya Bheem, Poliec Station Baijpupada, District Dausa
( Presently Confined At Sub Jail Bandikui Dausa)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through P.P
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rambharosi Meena brother of the petitioner.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Naina Ram, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN
Order
03/03/2023
1. En "Ex-Capt. Harish Uppal versus Union of India and Anr. 2003(2) SCC 45, Apex Court has held that lawyers have no right to go on strike or to give a call for boycott of Courts. Calls given by Bar Association or Bar Council for such purpose cannot require the Court to adjourn the matters. In "Krishnakant Tamrakar Versus The State of Maddhya Pradesh" decided by the Apex Court on 28.03.20218. The Apex Court has held that strike by advocates is in violation of law laid down by the Apex Court and the same tentamounts to contempt. The Apex Court has further held that the office bearers are liable to be removed from the office for passing resolution for strike. In view of the judgment of Apex Court in Ex-Capt. Harish Uppal 3401 and 'Krishnakant Tamrakar Versus The State of Madhya Pradesh" since the advocates are (Downloaded on 10/03/2023 at 12:08:59 AM) [2023/RJJP/003726] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-1748/2023] abstaining from work since 21.02.2023, this Court deems it proper to pass order on merits.
2. The petitioner has filed this bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.
3. F.I.R. No. 41/2022 was registered at Police Station Baijupada, Dausa for offencs under Sections 332, 353, 382 & 427 IPC.
4. It is contended by representative of the accused-petitioner that the accused-petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. He further submits that charge-sheet has been filed in the matter and further custody of the accused petitioner is no more required for any other purpose. The petitioner is in judicial custody and trial of the case is likely to take considerable time. He thus, prays that the present bail application may kindly be allowed.
5. Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the bail application and submits that the petitioner is a habitual offender and five other cases have been registered against the petitioner.
6. I have considered the contentions.
7. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case and especially the fact that charge sheet has been filed in the matter and trial of the case will take considerable time, I deem it proper to allow the instant bail application.
8. This bail application is accordingly allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioner shall be released on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lac only) together with two sureties in the sum of (Downloaded on 10/03/2023 at 12:08:59 AM) [2023/RJJP/003726] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-1748/2023] Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) each to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court with the stipulation that he shall appear before that Court and any court to which the matter is transferred, on all subsequent dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so. The petitioner is further directed to mark his presence in the concerned police station on first Monday of every month, till trial is concluded.
(ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J ANAND TANWAR /28 (Downloaded on 10/03/2023 at 12:08:59 AM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)