[2025:RJ-JP:37147] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 11167/2025 Kamal Kumar S/o Gopalchand, Aged About 38 Years, R/o Manda Bheemsingh, Post Manda Bheemsingh, Tehsil Renwal, P.s. Ren- wal, District Jaipur (Raj.). Presently Operator Of Kamal Photo Studio And Online Center, Near L.i.c. Office, Sikar. (At Present Lodge At District Jail Sikar District Sikar, Raj.) ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Shri. Tarachand Kumawat, brother of petitioner, present in person For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.S. Dhakar, PP with Mr. Gaurav Gupta, Assistant GA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 12/09/2025 1. In “Ex-Capt. Harish Uppal versus Union of India and Anr. 2003(2) SCC 45, Hon’ble 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 Madhya Pradesh” decided by the Apex Court on 28.3.2018, 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 versus Union of India and [2025:RJ-JP:37147] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-11167/2025] “Krishnakant Tamrakar Versus the State of Madhya Pradesh”, since the advocates are abstaining from work today, this Court deems it proper to pass order on merits. 2. The instant bail application has been filed under Section 483 of BNSS on behalf of the petitioner, who has been arrested in connection with FIR No.209/2025 registered at Police Station C.P.S. Jaipur, ACB District for offences punishable under Sections 7, 7A and 12 of Prevention of Corruption Act. 3. Shri. Tarachand Kumawat, brother of petitioner, present in person. He submits that petitioner is innocent and he has not committed any offence. He submits that there is allegation against the petitioner of receiving Rs.60,000/- as bribe amount from Assistant Engineer namely- Khumaram. It is contended that there are no criminal antecedents against the petitioner and trial will take considerable time in its conclusion. It is submitted that petitioner is in custody since his date of arrest and further custody of the petitioner would not serve any fruitful purpose. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the submissions. 5. I have considered the contentions. 6. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case; considering the arguments advanced by brother of the petitioner, especially considering the material available on record and trial will take considerable time in its conclusion as well as looking to the custody period, but without commenting anything on the merits/demerits of the case, I deem it proper to allow the bail application. [2025:RJ-JP:37147] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-11167/2025] 7. This bail application is accordingly allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioner – Kamal Kumar S/o Gopalchand shall be released on bail provided, he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) together with two sureties in the sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five 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. 8. The observations made hereinabove are only for decision of the bail application and would not have any impact on the trial of the case in any manner. (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J GAUTAM JAIN /118