[2026:RJ-JP:5] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 4th Bail Application No. 15300/2025 Narsing S/o Vajeraram, Aged About 23 Years, R/o Village Avra Police Station Shamgarh, District Mandsor, At Present Village Kundia Bujurg Police Station Garoth, District Mandsor (M.p.) (At Present Confined In Central Jail Kota (Raj.) ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Dharu 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 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 tantamount 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 passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ex-Capt. Harish Uppal (Supra) and Krishnakant Tamrakar [2026:RJ-JP:5] (2 of 4) [CRLMB-15300/2025] (Supra), since the advocates are abstaining from work today, this Court deems it proper to pass order on merits. 2. This fourth bail application under Section 483 of BNSS has been filed on behalf of the petitioner, who has been arrested in connection with FIR No.238/2023 registered at Police Station Ranpur, District Kota City for offences punishable under Sections 307 & 353 of IPC and Section 8/15 of NDPS Act. 3. Inadvertently, two bail applications (No.8357/2024 & 14200/2024) were filed on behalf of the petitioner which were listed on the same day before this Court. Bail Application bearing No.8357/2024 was dismissed by this Court on merits and bail application No.14200/2024 was dismissed as not pressed vide order dated 11.12.2024. Thereafter, third bail application was filed on behalf of the petitioner which was dismissed as withdrawn by this Court vide order dated 21.05.2025 while giving liberty to renew the prayer for bail after recording the testimony of the Investigating Officer on priority basis. Now, Investigating Officer of this case has been examined during the course of trial, thus this fourth bail application has been preferred. 4. Mr. Dharu Singh, pairokar of the petitioner is present in person. He submits that petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. He submits that admittedly, petitioner was not found at the place of recovery. It is submitted that the alleged recovery was made on 08.10.2023 while petitioner has been arrested on 02.06.2024. He submits that petitioner has been made accused in this case solely on the basis of police interrogation of the co- accused person who was arrested in this case on 29.05.2024. It is [2026:RJ-JP:5] (3 of 4) [CRLMB-15300/2025] submitted that interrogation of the co-accused person cannot be used against the petitioner as same is hit by Sections 23(1) & 23(2) of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (corresponding to Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act). He relied upon the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Tofan Singh Vs. State of Tamil Nadu reported in AIR 2020 SC 5592. There are no criminal antecedents of the petitioner and further custody of the petitioner would not serve any fruitful purpose. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the bail application. He submits that contraband (Poppy Husk) weighing 234Kgs & 800grams has been recovered in this case which falls under the category of commercial quantity. 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, especially considering the material available before me, as also the fact that petitioner was not apprehended at the spot, so also the fact that there are no criminal antecedents against the petitioner and trial will take considerable time in its conclusion as well as looking to the custody period which is more than one year six months, but without commenting anything on the merits/demerits of the case, I deem it proper to allow the fourth bail application. 8. This fourth bail application is accordingly allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioner – Narsing S/o Vajeraram shall be released on bail provided, he furnishes a personal bond in the [2026:RJ-JP:5] (4 of 4) [CRLMB-15300/2025] sum of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakh Only) together with two sureties in the sum of Rs.2,50,000/- (Rupees Two Lakh 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. 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 in first week of every month in the concerned police station, till conclusion of the trial. 10. 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. 11. 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 him by this Court. 12. Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the concerned SHO for necessary compliance. 13. 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 /16