Akhlesh S/O Tandilal @ Tandiram vs State Of Rajasthan ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 2651 Raj/2

[2023/RJJP/003731]

        HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                    BENCH AT JAIPUR

     S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 2415/2023

Akhlesh S/o Tandilal @ Tandiram, Aged About 27 Years, Resident
Of Khanpur, Police Station Spotra, District Karauli(Rajasthan)
                                                                   ----Petitioner
                                    Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through P.P
                                                                 ----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ashok Meena, brother of the petitioner present in person For Respondent(s) : Mr. Chandra Gupt Chopra, 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/003731] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-2415/2023]

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. 174/2022 was registered at Police Station Aligarh,

District Tonk for offences under Sections 365 & 384 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 the accused has not been named in

the FIR and the main accused of this case has been granted bail

by this Court. He further submits that the petitioner is in judicial

custody and conclusion of trial 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 fourteen other cases have been registered against him.

6. I have considered the contentions.

7. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case

and especially the fact that the co-accused has been granted bail

by this Court, 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

Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) each to the satisfaction

[2023/RJJP/003731] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-2415/2023]

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 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 /38

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)