[2026:RJ-JP:17] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 15349/2025 Mukat @ Omprakash son of Malkeram, age about 40 Years, resident of Rajapura, Police Station Sadar Hindauncity, District Karauli. (At present confined in Jail, Hindauncity, District Karauli). ----Petitioner Versus State of Rajasthan through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Darab 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. 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 [2026:RJ-JP:17] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-15349/2025] “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.345/2025 registered at Police Station Hindon Sadar, District Karauli for offences punishable under Sections 189(2), 126(2), 115(2), 332(c) & 125 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. He submits that perusal of the FIR would reveal that there is omnibus allegation against the petitioner. He submits that parties have resolved their dispute amicably. He places the copy of compromise for the perusal of the Court. 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 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. 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 charge-sheet has been filed in this matter; there are no criminal antecedents against the [2026:RJ-JP:17] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-15349/2025] 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. 7. This bail application is accordingly allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioner- Mukat @ Omprakash son of Malkeram 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 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 /131