Rinku Meena S/O Shri Ramesh Meena vs State Of Rajasthan ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 2652 Raj/2

[2023/RJJP/003716]

        HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                    BENCH AT JAIPUR

   S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 16416/2022

Rinku Meena S/o Shri Ramesh Meena, R/o Karnpura Chak No. 1,
Nalapar Ki Dhani, P.s. Lalsot, District Dausa. (At Present
Confined At District Jail Dausa.)
                                                                   ----Petitioner
                                    Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through P.P
                                                                 ----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sachin Meena, brother of the petitioner present in person For Respondent(s) : Mr. Naina Ram, PP Mr. Ramji Lal, respondent present in person

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 got on strike or to give a call for bocott 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/003716] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-16416/2022]

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. 544/2022 was registered at Police Station Lalsot,

District Dausa for offences under Sections 323, 341 & 302 IPC

4. It is contended by representative of the accused-petitioner

that the accused-petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case

and after investigation, the Police did not find the case under

Section 302 IPC and filed the charge sheet for the offences under

Sections 323, 341 and 304 Part II IPC. He further submits that

one of the eyewitness of the incident has been examined at the

trial and has been declared hostile by the prosecution. The

petitioner is in jail since 18.10.2022 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 as well as the complainant

vehemently opposed the bail application and submit that the

petitioner is responsible to cause head injury to the deceased and

in the postmortem report, the cause of death is head injury.

6. I have considered the contentions.

7. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case

and especially the fact that after investigation, police has filed

charge sheet for the offences under Sections 323, 341 and 304

Part II IPC and did not find the case under Section 302 IPC, I

deem it proper to allow the instant bail application.

[2023/RJJP/003716] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-16416/2022]

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

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 /10

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)