[2025:RJ-JP:37149] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 11229/2025 1. Mahesh @ Bholu S/o Sopan, R/o Near Fakku Marriage Home, Madeena Colony, Old City, Police Station Kotwali, District Dholpur, Raj. (At Present Confined In District Jail Dholpur). 2. Imran Khan S/o Pappu Khan, R/o Presently Tenant House Of Anish Madeena Colony, Old City, Police Station Kotwali, District Dholpur, Raj. (At Present Confined In District Jail Dholpur). ----Petitioners Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent Connected With S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 11605/2025 Iqbal Khan S/o Sahed Khan, Resident Of Village Purani Sarai, Purana Shahar Police Station Kotwali, District Dholpur (Raj.). (At Present Confined In District Jail, Dholpur). ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Chirag Kumar, Cousin of petitioner No.1, 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 [2025:RJ-JP:37149] (2 of 4) [CRLMB-11229/2025] 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 “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. These bail applications have been filed under Section 483 of BNSS, on behalf of the petitioners, who have been arrested in connection with FIR No.441/2025 registered at Police Station Kotwali Dholpur, District Dholpur (Raj.) for offence punishable under Section 305(a) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, (in short ‘BNS’) 2023. 3. Mr. Chirag Kumar, cousin of petitioner No.1, is present in person and he is representing all the petitioners. He submits that alleged offence is triable by Magistrate. It is contended that except one criminal antecedent against petitioner- Iqbal Khan, there are no criminal antecedents against the petitioners and trial will take considerable time in its conclusion. It is submitted that petitioners are in custody since their date of arrest and further custody of the petitioners would not serve any fruitful purpose. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the submissions. [2025:RJ-JP:37149] (3 of 4) [CRLMB-11229/2025] 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 Cousin of petitioner No.1, especially considering the fact that alleged offence is triable by Magistrate 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 these bail applications. 7. These bail applications are accordingly allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioners – 1) Mahesh @ Bholu S/o Sopan, 2) Imran Khan S/o Pappu Khan and 3) Iqbal Khan S/o Sahed Khan shall be released on bail provided each of them 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 they 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. It is made clear that the accused-petitioners shall not involve in any other offence(s) during currency of the bail and they shall mark their presence in first week of every month in the concerned police station. 9. Concerned SHO is directed to maintain a register recording the attendance of the petitioners, as directed above. In case the petitioners fail to mark their presence in the concerned police station, as directed above, the concerned SHO is directed to [2025:RJ-JP:37149] (4 of 4) [CRLMB-11229/2025] immediately report the matter to the concerned Court in this regard. 10. If any breach of these conditions is reported or come to the notice of the Court, the same shall alone be a reason for the trial court to cancel the bail granted to them by this Court. 11. Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the concerned SHO for necessary compliance. 12. The observations made hereinabove are only for decision of the bail applications and would not have any impact on the trial of the case in any manner. (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J GAUTAM JAIN /121-122