Rajasthan High Court
Sunil Kumar S/O Shri Kaluram vs State Of Rajasthan ... on 3 March, 2023
Bench: Anil Kumar Upman
[2023/RJJP/003742]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 377/2023
Sunil Kumar S/o Shri Kaluram, Aged About 17 Years, Aged About
17 Years 9 Month, R/o Jeetarwalon Ki Dhani, Tan Kasarda, Police
Station Reengus, District Sikar (Raj.) Through Natural Guardian
Father Kaluram S/o Shri Manglaram, Aged About 55 Years, R/o
Jeetarwalon Ki Dhani, Tan Kasarda, Police Station Reengus,
District Sikar (Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through P.P
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Surendra Kumar, brother of the
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
[2023/RJJP/003742] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-377/2023]
Versus The State of Madhya Pradesh" since the advocates are
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 Sunil Kumar S/o Shri Kaluram under
Section 438 Cr.P.C. in connection with FIR No.192/2022 registered
at Police Station Khatu Shyamji, District Sikar for the offence(s)
under Sections 147, 149, 341, 323, 307, 506 & 447 IPC.
3. It is contended by representative of the petitioner that the
petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case on account of a
land dispute and he is not concerned at all with the alleged crime.
None of the injuries has been opined to be dangerous to life. He
further submits that the petitioner is a student and the co-accused
persons have been granted regular bail. He thus, prays that the
instant application for pre-arrest bail may kindly be allowed.
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 omnibus allegations have been levelled in
the FIR and other co-accused are also on regular bail, 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 Khatu Shyamji, District
Sikar is directed that in the event of arrest of the petitioner in
connection with F.I.R. No.192/2022, he shall be released on bail,
[2023/RJJP/003742] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-377/2023]
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 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 /16
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
