[2026:RJ-JP:24] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 14557/2025 Rambabu S/o Shri Bhairu Sahay, Aged About 25 Years, Resident Of Ballupura, Ramgarh, Police Station Dhaulagarh Devi, District Alwar, Rajasthan. (At Present Confined In District Jail, Alwar) ----Accused-Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Bhairu Sahay, father of the petitioner with Mr. Yogesh Kumar Yadav, cousin brother of the petitioner, Present in Person. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Amit Punia, PP with Mr. Amit Kumar Gupta, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 05/01/2026 1. In “Ex-Capt. Harish Uppal versus Union of India and Anr.” reported in 2003 (2) SCC 45, Hon’ble Supreme 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 the case of “Krishnakant Tamrakar versus the State of Madhya Pradesh” reported in (2018) 17 SCC 27, it has been held that strike by advocates is in violation of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the same tantamounts to contempt. The Hon’ble Supreme 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 judgments passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court [2026:RJ-JP:24] (2 of 4) [CRLMB-14557/2025] in Ex-Capt. Harish Uppal (Supra) and Krishnakant Tamrakar (Supra), since the advocates are abstaining from work today, this Court deems it proper to pass order on merits. 2. This bail application under Section 483 of BNSS has been filed on behalf of the petitioner, who has been arrested in connection with FIR No.184/2025 registered at Police Station Bahtu Kalan (Devi Dholagarh), District Alwar for the offences punishable under Sections 316(2), 318(2), 319(2) & 111(2)(b) of BNS, 2023 and Section 66D of IT Act. After completion of investigation, police filed charge-sheet in this matter. 3. Mr. Yogesh Kumar Yadav, pairokar of the petitioner, present in person. He submits that petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. He further submits that account of the petitioner was being operated by the co-accused of this case and petitioner was not aware about the deposits in his account. He argues that according to the prosecution story in all Rs.3,40,989/- were deposited in the account of the petitioner and same were withdrawn by the co-accused of this case. He further argues that there are no criminal antecedents against the petitioner and trial will take considerable time in its conclusion. He contends that petitioner is in custody since 07.10.2025 and further custody of the petitioner would not serve any fruitful purpose. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the submissions made by pairokar of the petitioner and submits that intentionally his bank account was provided by the petitioner to the co-accused and with his consent same was being operated by the co-accused of this case. [2026:RJ-JP:24] (3 of 4) [CRLMB-14557/2025] 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 pairokar of the petitioner, especially the fact that petitioner is in custody since 07.10.2025; charge-sheet has been filed; absence of criminal antecedents and trial will take considerable time in its conclusion, but without commenting anything on the merits/demerits of the case, I deem it fit and proper to allow this bail application. 7. This bail application is accordingly allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioner- Rambabu S/o Shri Bhairu Sahay shall be released on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh 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. 8. It is made clear that the accused-petitioner shall not involve in any other offence(s) during currency of the bail and he shall mark his presence once in every three months in the concerned police station, till conclusion of the trial. 9. Concerned SHO shall enter attendance of the petitioner in the Roznamcha. In case the petitioner fails to mark his presence in the concerned police station, the concerned SHO is directed to immediately report the matter to the concerned Court in this regard. 10. If any breach of these conditions is reported or come to the [2026:RJ-JP:24] (4 of 4) [CRLMB-14557/2025] notice of the Court, the same shall alone be a reason for the trial Court to cancel the bail granted to him 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 application and would not have any impact on the trial of the case in any manner. (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J MADAN/114