[2026:RJ-JP:14] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 14664/2025 Vinit Bharadwaj S/o Girish Kumar Sharma, Age 47 Years, Resident of House no. 467, Vivek Vihar, Police Station Shyam Nagar, Jaipur Presently Flat No. 202, Mahtab Residency, Anand Vihar Colony, Jagatpura, Police Station Malviya Nagar, Jaipur (Presently confined at Central Jail, Jaipur). ----Petitioner Versus State of Rajasthan, through Public Prosecutor ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Archana, Pairokar of the petitioner For Respondent(s) : Mr. Amit Punia, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 05/01/2026 1. In “Ex-Capt. Harish Uppal versus Union of India and Anr. 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 “Krishnakant Tamrakar Versus the State of Madhya Pradesh” decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 28.3.2018, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that strike by advocates is in violation of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the same tentamounts 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 judgment of Hon’ble Supreme [2026:RJ-JP:14] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-14664/2025] 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. 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.487/2025 registered at Police Station Shyam Nagar, District Jaipur City (South) for offences punishable under Sections 318(4), 316(2), 329(4), 351(2), 351(3), 61(2) & 308(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, (in short ‘BNS’) 2023. 3. It is contended by Pairokar of the petitioner that accused- petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. She submits that alleged offences are triable by Magistrate. She submits that possession of property in question has been handed over to the complainant. She submits that co-accused of this case namely Reena Bhardwaj has already been granted benefit of bail by co- ordinate Bench of this Court. She submits that charge-sheet has been filed in this matter. It is submitted that there are no criminal antecedents against the petitioner and trial will take considerable time in its conclusion. It is further 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 made by Pairokar of the petitioner. 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 [2026:RJ-JP:14] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-14664/2025] the petitioner, as also the fact that alleged offences are triable by Magistrate; co-accused namely Reena Bhardwaj has already been granted benefit of bail by co-ordinate Bench of this Court; charge- sheet has been filed in this matter; there are no criminal antecedents against the petitioner 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- Vinit Bharadwaj S/o Girish Kumar Sharma 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. 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 LALIT MOHAN /118