Rajasthan High Court
Roopsingh @ Rooparam S/O Lekhram vs State Of Rajasthan ... on 3 March, 2023
Bench: Anil Kumar Upman
[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
[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
[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
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
