Shri Madhukar Varandani Son Of ... vs State Of Rajasthan ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 2640 Raj/2

[2023/RJJP/003739]

        HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                    BENCH AT JAIPUR

     S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 14844/2022

Shri Madhukar Varandani Son Of Shri Purushottam Varandani,
Aged About 33 Years, Resident Of 14-A, Ganesh Guvadi,
Panchsheel Nagar, Ajmer Proprietor Of Natural India Oil And
Proteins, Beawar Dist. Ajmer.
                                                                   ----Petitioner
                                    Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through P.P
                                                                 ----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Petitioner present in person For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mangal Saini, 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 28.03.2018. 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/003739] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-14844/2022]

abstaining from work since 21.02.2023, this Court deems it proper

to pass order on merits.

2. Apprehending the arrest, the present bail application has

been filed by the petitioner -Shri Madhukar Varandani Son Of Shri

Purushottam Varandani under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in connection

with FIR No.211/2022 registered at Police Station Deoli District

Tonk for the offence(s) under Sections 420, 469 and 487 of IPC.

3. It is contended by the petitioner that he is not named in the

FIR and in pursuance of the order dated 11.11.2022, he has

joined the investigation. He further submits that no custodial

interrogation is required in this matter. He further submits that the

alleged offences are based on documents, which are in possession

of the Investigating Officer. He further submits that further

interrogation is also not warranted in this case.

4. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently

opposed the bail application.

5. Heard. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the

case and the fact that the petitioner has joined the investigation,

without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, this court

deems it just and proper to allow the anticipatory bail application.

5. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application is allowed. The

S.H.O/I.O/Arresting Officer, Police Station Deoli, District Tonk is

directed that in the event of arrest of the petitioner in connection

with F.I.R. No. 211/2022, he shall be released on bail, provided he

furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two

sureties in the sum of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the

[2023/RJJP/003739] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-14844/2022]

S.H.O/I.O/Arresting Officer of the concerned Police Station on the

following conditions:-

(i) that the petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

(ii) that the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or any police officer, and

(iii) that the petitioner shall not leave India without previous permission of the court.

(ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J

ANAND TANWAR /51

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)