Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Ramesh Chand vs State Of Rajasthan Through Pp on 30 May, 2018
Author: Pankaj Bhandari
Bench: Pankaj Bhandari
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail No. 6820/2018
Ramesh Chand S/o Shri Ghisalal, B/c Saini, R/o Agri Mod Tan
Ganeshwar Police Station Sadar Neem Ka Thana District Sikar. At
Present In District Jail, Sikar.
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan Through P.p.
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : None Present
For Respondent(s) : None Present
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI
Order
30/05/2018
1. 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 (2 of 2) [CRLMB-6820/2018] 21.5.2018, this Court deems it proper to pass order on merits.
2. Petitioner has filed this bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.
3. F.I.R. No. 321/2017 was registered at Police Station Sadar Neem Ka Thana, Distt. Sikar for offence under Sections 363, 376- D, 376(2) (JHA) of I.P.C. and Section 5/6 of POCSO Act.
4. No case is made out for entertaining the present bail application as the allegation in the F.I.R. pertains to rape upon a child aged 14 years, who in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. has levelled allegations against the present petitioner and bail application of co-accused was rejected by this Court.
5. Hence, present bail application is accordingly rejected.
6. Petitioner would be free to move fresh bail application before the concerned Court after recording of the statement of prosecutrix.
(PANKAJ BHANDARI),J Amit/126