Shahrukh @ Sheru S/O Mohd. Yasin Vs State of Rajasthan

¶1

(1 of 3) [CRLMB-14249/2025]

¶2

[2026:RJ-JP:20]

¶3

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶4

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 14249/2025

¶5

Shahrukh @ Sheru S/o Mohd. Yasin, Aged About 24 Years, R/o Narodada, Police Station Laxmangarh, District Sikar. (At Present Confined In Sub Jail Fatehpur (Sikar)

¶6

----Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor

¶9

		----Respondent
For Petitioner(s)	: Nonepresent
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Amit Punia,PP

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN

¶11

Order

¶12

05/01/2026

¶13

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 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

(2 of 3)

[2026:RJ-JP:20]

[CRLMB-14249/2025]

(Supra), since the advocates are abstaining from work today, this Court deems it proper to pass order on merits.

¶18

This bail application under Section 483 of BNSS has been filed on behalf of the petitioner, who has been arrested in connection with FIR No.272/2025 registered at Police Station Laxmangarh (Sikar), District Sikar for offence punishable under Section 3/25 of Arms Act.

¶19

Bare perusal of the file would reveal that petitioner was found in possession of country-made pistol. Alleged offence is triable by Magistrate and trial will take considerable time in its conclusion. The petitioner is in custody since 12.10.2025 and further custody of the petitioner would not serve any fruitful purpose.

¶20

Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the bail application and submits that petitioner is a habitual offender as six other cases have been registered against him.

¶21

I have considered the contentions.

¶22

Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case; considering the fact that alleged offence is triable by Magistrate 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 fit and proper to allow this bail application.

¶23

This bail application is accordingly allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioner- Shahrukh @ Sheru S/o Mohd. Yasin, shall be released on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) together with

[2026:RJ-JP:20]

[CRLMB-14249/2025]

(3 of 3)

two sureties in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty 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

Considering the criminal antecedents of the petitioner, it is made clear that the petitioner shall not involve in similar offence(s) during currency of bail granted by this Court. The petitioner is further directed to mark his presence in the concerned police station in the first week of every month, till trial is concluded.

¶29

Concerned SHO shall enter the attendance of the petitioner in the Roznamcha. In case the petitioner fails to mark his presence in the concerned police station, as directed above, the concerned SHO is directed to immediately report the matter to the concerned Court in this regard.

¶30

If breach of any of these conditions is reported or come to the notice of the Court, same shall alone be a reason for the trial Court to cancel the bail granted to the petitioner by this Court.

¶31

Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the concerned SHO for necessary compliance.

¶32

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.

¶33

(ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J

¶34

CHARU SONI /112

Shahrukh @ Sheru S/O Mohd. Yasin v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shahrukh @ Sheru S/O Mohd. Yasin 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

Mohammad Abid Son of Rafiq Mohammad Vs State of Rajasthan

Vikash Meena S/O Ramkesh Meena Vs State of Rajasthan and Others

Lokesh Choudhary Son of Vijendra Singh, Vs State of Rajasthan

Rafiq S/O Fazlu, Vs State of Rajasthan

Rambabu S/O Shri Bhairu Sahay Vs State of Rajasthan

Vinit Bharadwaj S/O Girish Kumar Sharma Vs State of Rajasthan