[2026:RJ-JP:20713] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Second Bail Application No. 2747/2026 Ganesh Ojha S/o Mahaveer Prasad, Age 25 Years, Resident of Village Bigga, Police Station Shridungarh, District Bikaner, Rajasthan. (Presently accused petitioner is in High Security Jail, Ajmer) ----Petitioner Versus State of Rajasthan through PP ----Respondent Connected With S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Second Bail Application No. 2748/2026 Rakesh Ojha Son of Sanwarmal Ojha, Age 23 Years, Resident of Village Bigga, Police Station Shridungarh, District Bikaner, Rajasthan. (Presently accused petitioner is in High Security Jail, Ajmer) ----Petitioner Versus State of Rajasthan, through P.P. ----Respondent S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Second Bail Application No. 3261/2026 Guljhari @ G.L. Son of Dayaram, Age 35 Years, Resident of Dhani Jakhado Ki Tan Kairwali, Police Station Sadar Neemkathana, District Sikar, Rajasthan. (Presently Accused petitioner is in High Security Jail, Ajmer). ----Petitioner Versus State of Rajasthan through P.P. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : None present For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sudesh Kumar Saini, PP with Mr. N.S. Dhakar, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 16/05/2026 1. In “Ex-Capt. Harish Uppal versus Union of India and Anr.” reported in 2003 (2) SCC 45, Hon’ble Supreme Court has held [2026:RJ-JP:20713] (2 of 5) [CRLMB-2747/2026] 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 (Supra), since the advocates are abstaining from work today, this Court deems it proper to pass order on merits. 2. These second bail applications under Section 483 of BNSS have been filed on behalf of the petitioners, who have been arrested in connection with FIR No.816/2022 registered at Police Station Udhyog Nagar (Sikar), District Sikar (Rajasthan) for offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 396 & 120B of IPC and Sections 3/25 & 7/27 of Arms Act. After completion of investigation, police filed charge-sheet in this matter for offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 396, 473, 115, 118, 119, 201 & 120B of IPC, Sections 3/25(6), 7/25(6) & 7/27(3) of Arms Act and Section 83(2) of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. 3. The first bail applications filed on behalf of the petitioners- Ganesh Ojha & Rakesh Ojha were dismissed by this Court vide order dated 28.05.2024 while giving liberty to renew the prayer [2026:RJ-JP:20713] (3 of 5) [CRLMB-2747/2026] for bail after one year, if there is no effective progress in trial whereas the first bail application filed on behalf of petitioner Guljhari @ G.L was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 04.02.2025 while giving liberty to renew the prayer for bail if there is any change in circumstances and in case if there is no effective progress in trial. It appears that more than 23 months have passed since the bail applications of the petitioners, Ganesh and Rakesh, were dismissed, and more than 15 months have passed since the bail application of petitioner, Guljhari @ G.L, was dismissed. As there has been no effective progress in the trial, these second bail applications have been filed on behalf of the petitioners. 4. Perusal of the record would reveal that petitioners are in custody since December, 2022. Presently, petitioners are facing Sessions trial wherein till date, only 16 witnesses have been examined out of 154 cited prosecution witnesses. It appears that trial is going on at a snail’s pace and there is a bleak chance of its culmination in the near future. It is also evident from the record that similarly situated co-accused namely, Sarjeet Singh whose bail application was earlier rejected by this Court has been granted benefit of bail by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP (Crl.) No. 5580/2026 vide order dated 24.04.2026. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the bail applications. He submits that sixteen other cases have been registered against the petitioner Guljhari @ G.L. However, fairly concedes that he has been acquitted in six cases. 6. I have considered the contentions. [2026:RJ-JP:20713] (4 of 5) [CRLMB-2747/2026] 7. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case; especially considering the role attributed to the petitioners, as also considering the fact that similarly situated co- accused namely, Sarjeet Singh has already been granted benefit of bail by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, so also considering the fact that the petitioners are in custody since December, 2022 and as such, they have already suffered incarceration of about three and half years and trial will take considerable time in its conclusion, but without commenting anything on the merits/demerits of the case, this Court deems it fit and proper to allow these second bail applications. 8. 8. These second bail applications are accordingly allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioners- (1) Ganesh Ojha S/o Mahaveer Prasad, (2) Rakesh Ojha Son of Sanwarmal Ojha and (3) Guljhari @ G.L. Son of Dayaram shall be released on bail provided each of them furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- together with two sureties in the sum of Rs.50,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court with the stipulation that they 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. The petitioners shall not involve in any other offence during currency of the bail granted by this Court. Considering the criminal antecedents of the petitioner Guljhari @ G.L, he is directed to mark his presence in the concerned police station in first week of every month, till trial is concluded. [2026:RJ-JP:20713] (5 of 5) [CRLMB-2747/2026] 10. Concerned SHO shall enter attendance of the petitioner Guljhari @ G.L. 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 the aforesaid condition is reported or comes to the notice of the Court, the same shall alone be a reason for the trial Court to cancel the bail granted to the petitioners by this Court. 12. Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the concerned SHO for necessary compliance. 13. Needless to observe, the petitioners shall not directly or indirectly, by making inducement, threat or promise, dissuade any person acquainted with the facts of the case from disclosing such facts to the Court. 14. The observations made hereinabove are only for decision of these bail applications and would not have any impact on the trial of the case in any manner. (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J LALIT MOHAN /55-57