Allowed¶27

Kamal Kumar S/O Gopalchand v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC12 Sept 2025CRLMB/11167/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Rajasthan High Court Jaipur; CRLMB 11167/2025; regular/default bail under Section 483 BNSS; Prevention of Corruption Act Sections 7, 7A, 12; FIR No.209/2025 P.S. C.P.S. Jaipur ACB; alleged bribe Rs.60,000/- from Assistant Engineer Khumaram; advocates' strike / bar boycott; order on merits despite strike; Ex-Capt. Harish Uppal v. Union of India 2003(2) SCC 45; Krishnakant Tamrakar v. State of Madhya Pradesh; personal bond Rs.50,000/-; two sureties Rs.25,000/- each; Anil Kumar Upman, J.; order dated 12/09/2025; bail allowed.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail of accused-petitioner Kamal Kumar S/o Gopalchand upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court, with stipulation to appear on all subsequent dates of hearing. ¶27

Kamal Kumar S/O Gopalchand Vs State of Rajasthan — Corruption | Rajasthan HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶27

Issue for consideration

Whether the bail application under Section 483 of BNSS filed by Kamal Kumar, arrested in connection with FIR No.209/2025 (P.S. C.P.S. Jaipur, ACB District) for offences under Sections 7, 7A and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, should be allowed.

¶18

Court's answer

Considering the totality of facts and circumstances, material on record, the time the trial will take and the custody period, but without commenting on the merits/demerits of the case, the Court deemed it proper to allow the bail application.

¶23

Ratio / Principle

Since advocates were abstaining from work (strike), and in view of the Apex Court judgments in Ex-Capt. Harish Uppal and Krishnakant Tamrakar, the Court deemed it proper to pass order on merits rather than adjourn.

¶17

Key takeaways

Accused-petitioner Kamal Kumar S/o Gopalchand is to be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- together with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each, to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court, with a stipulation to 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.ratio¶27
The observations made in the order are only for the decision of the bail application and would not have any impact on the trial of the case in any manner.ratio¶28

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail granted under Section 483 BNSS to Kamal Kumar S/o Gopalchand, arrested in FIR No.209/2025 of P.S. C.P.S. Jaipur (ACB District) for offences punishable under Sections 7, 7A and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act (allegation of receiving Rs.60,000/- as bribe from Assistant Engineer Khumaram). Order was passed on merits despite advocates abstaining from work, the Court invoking the Apex Court rulings in Ex-Capt. Harish Uppal v. Union of India, 2003(2) SCC 45, and Krishnakant Tamrakar v. State of Madhya Pradesh (decided 28.3.2018), that lawyers have no right to strike or call for boycott of courts. Bail allowed without commenting on merits, considering material on record, likely duration of trial and custody period, on a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each; observations confined to the bail decision with no impact on trial. Single-Judge order of Anil Kumar Upman, J., Rajasthan High Court (Jaipur Bench), dated 12/09/2025.

¶1

[2025:RJ-JP:37147]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 11167/2025

¶4

Kamal Kumar S/o Gopalchand, Aged About 38 Years, R/o Manda Bheemsingh, Post Manda Bheemsingh, Tehsil Renwal, P.s. Renwal, District Jaipur (Raj.). Presently Operator Of Kamal Photo Studio And Online Center, Near L.i.c. Office, Sikar. (At Present Lodge At District Jail Sikar District Sikar, Raj.)

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through PP

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

For Petitioner(s)	: Shri. Tarachand Kumawat, brother of petitioner, present inperson
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. N.S. Dhakar, PP with
	Mr. Gaurav Gupta,Assistant GA

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN

¶11

Order

¶12

12/09/2025

¶13

In “Ex-Capt. Harish Uppal versus Union of India and Anr. 2003(2) SCC 45, Hon’ble 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 tentamounts 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-Capt. Harish Uppal versus Union of India and

(2 of 3)

[2025:RJ-JP:37147]

[CRLMB-11167/2025]

“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.

¶18

The instant bail application has been filed under Section 483 of BNSS on behalf of the petitioner, who has been arrested in connection with FIR No.209/2025 registered at Police Station C.P.S. Jaipur, ACB District for offences punishable under Sections 7, 7A and 12 of Prevention of Corruption Act.

¶19

Shri. Tarachand Kumawat, brother of petitioner, present in person. He submits that petitioner is innocent and he has not committed any offence. He submits that there is allegation against the petitioner of receiving Rs.60,000/- as bribe amount from Assistant Engineer namely- Khumaram. It is contended that there are no criminal antecedents against the petitioner and trial will take considerable time in its conclusion. It is submitted that petitioner is in custody since his date of arrest and further custody of the petitioner would not serve any fruitful purpose.

¶20

Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the submissions.

¶21

I have considered the contentions.

¶22

Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances

¶23

of the case; considering the arguments advanced by brother of the petitioner, especially considering the material available on record and trial will take considerable time in its conclusion as well as looking to the custody period, but without commenting anything on the merits/demerits of the case, I deem it proper to allow the bail application.

(3 of 3)

[2025:RJ-JP:37147]

[CRLMB-11167/2025]

This bail application is accordingly allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioner – Kamal Kumar S/o Gopalchand 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.

¶28

The observations made hereinabove are only for decision of the bail application and would not have any impact on the trial of the case in any manner.

¶29

(ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J

¶30

GAUTAM JAIN /118

Kamal Kumar S/O Gopalchand v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kamal Kumar S/O Gopalchand v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Papparam S/O Shri Chokharam Vs State of Rajasthan

Sunil Gupta S/O Shri Mahesh Chand Gupta Vs State of Rajasthan

Harindra Rathi S/O Sarjeet Vs the State of Rajasthan

Smt. Guddi W/O Late Ramveer Vs State of Rajasthan

Iqbal Khan S/O Sahed Khan Vs State of Rajasthan

Mahesh @ Bholu S/O Sopan Vs State of Rajasthan