SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Hakam vs State Of Rajasthan Through P P on 28 May, 2018


S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail No. 5952/2018

Hakam S/o Himmat, B/c Mev, R/o Bijalheda, Police Station
Tijara, District Alwar (Raj.)
State Of Rajasthan Through P.p.

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


Judgment / Order


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 21.5.2018,

this Court deems it proper to pass order on merits.

(2 of 2) [CRLMB-5952/2018]

2. Petitioner has filed this bail application under Section 438 of


3. F.I.R. No.262/2018 was registered at Police Station Tijara,

District Alwar for offence under Sections 376, 511 I.P.C. Later on

the investigation was conducted and offence punishable under

Section 354 IPC was found.

4. I have perused the record.

5. The prosecutrix is a married lady having a child. There is

delay of two days in lodging of FIR. From the case diary it is

revealed that the prosectrix has not sustained any injury.

6. In view of the same, I am inclined to allow the anticipatory


7. The Anticipatory Bail Application is allowed. The

S.H.O./I.O./Arresting Authority, Police Station Tijara, District Alwar in F.I.R.

No.262/2018, 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:-

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

(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

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



Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2021 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation