Allowed

Anil Dhayal v. State of Rajasthan through Pp

Rajasthan HC30 May 2018CRLMB/6740/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan Bench at Jaipur, considering the Apex Court's view on lawyer strikes as contempt and noting that similarly situated co-accused were granted bail, allowed the bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. relative to Sections 392 and 458 IPC.

What did the court decide?

Bail allowed; accused to be released on personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- and two sureties in Rs. 25,000/- each.

Anil Dhayal Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp — Bail and Remand | Rajasthan HC (2018)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail No. 6740/2018

¶3

Anil Dhayal S/o Shri Madan Lal B/c Jat, Aged About 21 Years, R/o Garinda, P.s. Sadar Fatehpur, Distt. Sikar (At Present Confined In Sub Jail Fatehpur)

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of Rajasthan Through P.p.

¶7

----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : None Present For Respondent(s) : None Present

¶8

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI

¶9

Order

¶10

30/05/2018

¶11

In “Ex-Capt. Harish Uppal versus Union of India and Anr. 2003 (2) SCC 45, Apex 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 Apex Court on 28.3.2018. The Apex Court has held that strike by advocates is in violation of law laid down by the Apex Court and the same tantamounts to contempt. The Apex 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 Apex Court in Ex.Captain Harish Uppal Vs. Union of India and “Krishnakant Tamrakar Versus The State of Madhya Pradesh”,

¶12

(2 of 2)

¶13

[CRLMB-6740/2018]

¶14

since the advocates are abstaining from work since 21.5.2018, this Court deems it proper to pass order on merits.

¶15

Petitioner has filed this bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.

¶16

F.I.R. No. 235/2017 was registered at Police Station Kotwali Fatehpur, District Sikar for offence under Sections 392, 458 of I.P.C.

¶17

I have perused the record.

¶18

From perusal of the record, it is revealed that similarly situated co-accused have been given benefit of bail by this Court and by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, hence, I deem it proper to allow the bail application.

¶19

This bail application is accordingly allowed and it is directed that accused petitioner shall be released on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) together with two sureties in the sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five 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.

¶20

(PANKAJ BHANDARI),J

¶21

Amit/85

Anil Dhayal v. State of Rajasthan through Pp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anil Dhayal v. State of Rajasthan through Pp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ritesh Agrawal and Anr. Vs State of Raj and Anr.

Dr Ajay Vikram Singh and Anr. Vs University Grants Commission and Ors.

Mohammad Shafik and Ors. Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Baldev Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Akshay Kumar Kothari Vs Shri Sikhar Agarwal and Ors.

Bapu Lal Katara Vs Veenu Gupta and Ors.