Allowed

Prithvi Singh v. State of Rajasthan through Pp

Rajasthan HC31 May 2018CRLMB/6900/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court upheld bail application for petitioner, a security guard accused of IPC offences arising from a parking dispute. Court held he is not required for further investigation due to the nature of the incident and allowed release on personal and surety bonds under Section 439 CrPC.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 and two surety bonds of Rs. 25,000 each to the trial court.

Prithvi Singh Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp — Cheating and Forgery | Rajasthan HC (2018)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail No. 6900/2018

¶3

Prithvi Singh S/o Shri Roop Singh B/c Rajput, R/o 133, Suresh Nagar, Durgapura, Jaipur (Raj.) (Presently Accused Confined In Central Jail, Jaipur)

¶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

31/05/2018

¶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”, since the advocates are abstaining from work since

¶12

(2 of 2)

¶13

[CRLMB-6900/2018]

¶14

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. 428/2018 was registered at Police Station Jawahar Circle, Jaipur for offence under Sections 341, 323, 308, 504, 379 of I.P.C.

¶17

I have perused the record.

¶18

From perusal of the record, it is revealed that the dispute took place when the customer of a different hotel tried to forcefully park his car in the Bella Casa Hotel. Petitioner is the security guard at the hotel who objected to the parking of car, he is not required for further investigation, 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/128

Prithvi Singh v. State of Rajasthan through Pp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prithvi Singh 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

Anil Dhayal Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Asgar Ali Usta Vs Shri Rajhansh Upadhyaya and Ors.

Shokat Ali andANR Vs Mr Devendra Bhushan Gupta and Ros

Babulal Kumawat and Ors. Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Smt Kaushalya Devi Vs Gopal Lal

Deen Dayal Tiwari and Another Vs Smt Gayatri Sharma and Others