Allowed

Ramesh v. State of Rajasthan through Pp

Rajasthan HC1 Jun 2018CRLMB/7010/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge allowed anticipatory bail to petitioner facing FIR for affray and assault. Granted bail with bond and conditions prohibiting inducement, leaving India, noting no firearm allegation. Based on Apex Court rulings against lawyer strikes.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner allowed bail with personal bond of Rs.50,000 and sureties of Rs.25,000 each on specified conditions.

Ramesh Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp — Anticipatory Bail | Rajasthan HC (2018)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail No. 7010/2018

¶3

Ramesh S/o Mangal Ram B/c Meena, R/o Near Kanya Mahavidhyalay Niwai, Police Station Distt. Tonk (Raj.)

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of Rajasthan Through P.p.

¶7

----Respondent

¶8

For Petitioner(s) : None present For Respondent(s) : None present

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI

¶10

Judgment / Order

¶11

01/06/2018

¶12

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 21.5.2018, this Court deems it proper to pass order on merits.

¶13

(2 of 2)

¶14

[CRLMB-7010/2018]

¶15

Petitioner has filed this bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

¶16

F.I.R. No.17/2018, was registered at Police Station Niwai (Tonk) for offence under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 324, 325, 326, 336, 307 I.P.C.

¶17

I have perused the record.

¶18

From perusal of the record, it is revealed that there is no allegation against the present petitioner of use of firearm. There is a cross F.I.R. Some of co-accused have been given benefit of anticipatory bail by this Court, hence, I deem it proper to allow the bail application.

¶19

The Anticipatory Bail Application is allowed. The S.H.O./I.O./Arresting Authority, Police Station Niwai (Tonk) in F.I.R. No.17/2018 is directed that in the event of arrest of the petitioner he shall be released on bail, provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties in the sum of Rs.25,000/each to his satisfaction on the following conditions:-

¶20

(I). that the petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

¶21

(ii). that the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or any police officer, and

¶22

(iii). that the petitioner shall not leave India without previous permission of the Court.

¶23

(PANKAJ BHANDARI),J

¶24

Arti/147

Ramesh v. State of Rajasthan through Pp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramesh 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

Komal Prasad and Ors. Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Jamil Ahmad Vs R S R T C and Ors.

Smt Shobha Tomar Vs State of Rajasthan through P P

Anand Nama Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Siraj Kumar Sahu Vs U O I and Anr.

Rameshwar Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp