Deepak Klumar Tailor S/O Sh. Maliram Tailor, v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC7 Mar 2026CRLMA/1/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Restoration of dismissed criminal writ petition; Section 528 BNSS 2023 application; dismissal for non-compliance of peremptory order dated 28.10.2025; advocates' strike / boycott of courts; reliance on Ex-Capt. Harish Uppal (2003 (2) SCC 45) and Krishnakant Tamrakar ((2018) 17 SCC 27); Rajasthan High Court Jaipur Bench; Anil Kumar Upman, J.; order dated 07/03/2026; CRLMA No.1/2026 in S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No.465/2025; petitioner Deepak Kumar Tailor; respondents State of Rajasthan, DGP Rajasthan, Commissioner of Police Jaipur, SHO PS Kalwar.

What did the court decide?

Restoration of S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No.465/2025 to its original number. ¶¶22

Deepak Klumar Tailor S/O Sh. Maliram Tailor, Vs State of Rajasthan — Rajasthan HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

[2026:RJ-JP:9843]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.1/2026

¶4

¶5

S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No.465/2025

¶6

Deepak Kumar Tailor S/o Sh. Maliram Tailor, aged about 47 years, Resident of 2-D-127, Lalita Basti, Shastri Nagar, Jaipur, District Jaipur (Raj).

¶7

----Petitioner

¶8

Versus

¶9

State of Rajasthan through P.P.

¶10

Director General of Police, Rajasthan, Jaipur. 3. Commissioner of Police, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur (Rajasthan).

¶11

S.H.O. Police Station Kalwar, Jaipur (Rajasthan).

¶12

----Respondents

¶13

For Petitioner(s)	: Nonepresent
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Vijay Singh Yadav, PP with
	Mr. Onkar Singh Rajpurohit,PP

¶14

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order

¶15

07/03/2026

¶16

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

[2026:RJ-JP:9843]

[CRLMA-1/2026]

(2 of 2)

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.

¶21

The instant criminal misc. application under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 has been preferred for restoration of S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No.465/2025, which was dismissed vide order dated 05.12.2025 on account of non-compliance of the peremptory order dated 28.10.2025 passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court.

¶22

Having considered the grounds mentioned in the application and in the interest of justice, the same is allowed and the S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No.465/2025 is ordered to be restored to its original number.

¶23

(ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J

¶24

LALIT MOHAN /32

Deepak Klumar Tailor S/O Sh. Maliram Tailor, v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Deepak Klumar Tailor S/O Sh. Maliram Tailor, 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

Asgar @ Bhukkad S/O Kalu Khan Vs State of Rajasthan

Lalit Jangid Son of Shri Mohanlal Jangid, Vs Anil Kumar Garg Son of Shri Hariram

Lalit Jangid Son of Shri Mohanlal Jangid, Vs Anil Kumar Garg Son of Shri Hariram

Bhawani Shankar Purohit S/O Shri Jhumar Mal, Vs State of Rajasthan

Komal Jatav Daughter of Shri Vijendra, Vs State of Rajasthan

Nanag Ram Mahawar, Son of Shri Jai Ram, Vs State of Rajasthan