Rajasthan High Court
Sanni Son Of Krishan Singh Valmiki vs State Of Rajasthan ... on 3 March, 2023
Bench: Anil Kumar Upman
[2023/RJJP/003720]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 433/2023
Sanni Son Of Krishan Singh Valmiki, Aged About 26 Years,
Resident Of Haluwas, Police Station Sadar Bhiwani, District
Bhiwani ( Haryana) ( At Present In District Jail Sikar)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through P.P
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pradeep, brother of the petitioner,
present in person
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Naina Ram, PP
None present for the victim
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 28.03.2018. 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
[2023/RJJP/003720] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-433/2023]
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. 334/2022 was registered at Police Station
Khandela, District Sikar for offences under Sections 363, 366A of
IPC and Section 84 of Juvenile Justice (Protection and Care of
Children) Act, 2015.
4. It is contended by representative of the accused-petitioner
that the accused-petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case
and the petitioner is not concerned at all with the alleged offences.
He further submits that after investigation, the police has filed
charge-sheet for offences under Sections 363, 366-A,
376(2)(n), 344 and 376(3) IPC, Section 84 of J.J.Act, 2015 and
Sections 51 & 6 of POCSO Act in the court concerned. He further
submits that in the statement of the prosecutrix recorded under
Section 164 CrPC, nothing has been alleged against the petitioner.
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.
6. Despite having been informed, no one has appeared on
behalf of the victim to oppose the bail application.
7. I have considered the contentions.
8. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case
[2023/RJJP/003720] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-433/2023]
and especially the fact that nothing has been alleged against the
petitioner by the prosecutrix in her statement under Section 164
Cr.P.C. and trial of the case will take considerable time, I deem it
proper to allow the instant bail application.
9. 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
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.
(ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J
ANAND TANWAR /19
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
