[2026:RJ-JP:19] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 15018/2025 Meetha Lal son of Ramgopal, age 42 Years, Resident of Lorwada, Police Station Soorwal, District Sawai Madhopur (Rajasthan) (At present confined in District Jail, Sawai Madhopur) ----Petitioner Versus State of Rajasthan through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Lakhan Singh, 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 Vs Union of India & 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 Krishnakant Tamrakar Vs The State of Madhya Pradesh reported in AIR 2018 SC 3635, 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 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 of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Ex-Capt. Harish Uppal (supra) and Krishnakant Tamrakar (supra), since the advocates are abstaining [2026:RJ-JP:19] (2 of 4) [CRLMB-15018/2025] 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.206/2025 registered at Police Station Soorwaal, District Sawai Madhopur for offences punishable under Sections 318(4), 319(2), 112(2) & 61(2)(a) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, (in short ‘BNS’) 2023 and Section 66-D of Information Technology (Amended) Act, 2000. 3. It is contended by Pairokar of the petitioner that accused- petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. He submits that petitioner has nothing to do with the alleged offences. He submits that alleged offences are triable by Magistrate. It is submitted that charge-sheet has been filed in this matter. It is submitted that according to the impugned order dated 01.11.2025 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Sawai Madhopur, 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 27.10.2025 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. He submits that with regard to the bank account as maintained by the petitioner, other complaints have also been received on Cyber portal and petitioner has received the amount of Rs.230/-, Rs.8200/-, Rs.8,000/-, Rs.15,999/-, Rs.12,700/- and Rs.12,000/- respectively from the different persons. [2026:RJ-JP:19] (3 of 4) [CRLMB-15018/2025] 5. At this stage, Pairokar of the petitioner submits that petitioner is running grocery shop and aforesaid amount were transferred by the co-accused of this case. 6. I have considered the contentions. 7. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case; considering the arguments advanced by Pairokar of the petitioner, as also the fact that alleged offences are triable by Magistrate; 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 as well as looking to the period of custody, but without commenting anything on the merits/demerits of the case, I deem it fit and proper to allow this bail application. 8. This bail application is accordingly allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioner- Meetha Lal son of Ramgopal 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. 9. However, it is made clear that the petitioner shall not involve in similar offence(s) during currency of bail granted by this Court. The petitioner is further directed to mark his presence in the concerned police station in first week of every three month, till trial is concluded. [2026:RJ-JP:19] (4 of 4) [CRLMB-15018/2025] 10. Concerned SHO shall enter the attendance of the petitioner in the Roznamcha. In case the petitioner fails to mark his presence in the concerned police station, as directed above, the concerned SHO is directed to immediately report the matter to the concerned Court in this regard. 11. If breach of any 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 petitioner by this Court. 12. Office is directed to send copy of this order to the concerned SHO for necessary compliance. 13. The observation made hereinabove is only for decision of the instant bail application and would not have any impact on the trial of the case in any manner. (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J LALIT MOHAN /122