[2026:RJ-JP:15] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 15291/2025 Fauji son of Late Shri Hemsingh, aged about 35 years resident of Tussipura Majra Aarua, Police Station Kanchanpur, District Dholpur (At present confined in District Jail, Dholpur) ----Petitioner Versus State of Rajasthan through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rammaran, Pairokar of the peti- tioner 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 Court in Ex-Capt. Harish Uppal versus Union of India and “Krishnakant Tamrakar Versus the State of Madhya Pradesh”, since [2026:RJ-JP:15] (2 of 4) [CRLMB-15291/2025] 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.316/2025 registered at Police Station Sadar Dholpur, District Dholpur for offences punishable under Sections 318(4) & 319(2) 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 alleged offences are triable by Magistrate. It is submitted 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 08.11.2025 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 petitioner has received Rs.2,60,010/- in his account. 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, 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 [2026:RJ-JP:15] (3 of 4) [CRLMB-15291/2025] of custody, 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- Fauji son of Late Shri Hemsingh 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. 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. 9. 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. 10. 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. 11. Office is directed to send copy of this order to the concerned SHO for necessary compliance. [2026:RJ-JP:15] (4 of 4) [CRLMB-15291/2025] 12. 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 /128