Sbcrlmb No.4259/10. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR. O R D E R S.B. CR.MISC.BAIL APPLICATION NO.4259/2010. Vidhadhar Vs. State of Rajasthan Date of order : 19/5/2010. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri Vijay Poonia for the petitioner. Shri Amit Poonia, Public Prosecutor for State. ****** BY THE COURT:- Learned counsel for petitioner has argued that he has been falsely implicated in the instant case at the instance of one Circle Officer of the Police in relation to theft of Bolero Jeep bearing No.RJ-4-UB-1921 but he has already been enlarged on bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jhunjhunu for theft of the same vehicle. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail application. I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail because number of such criminal cases are pending against him. As per the rejection order, there are 20 cases pending against the petitioner. Bail which was granted to the petitioner by the Jhunjhunu Court was based on the recovery of Vehicle No.RJ-4-UB-0192 in FIR No.77/2010 which was lodged later in point of time Sbcrlmb No.4259/10. 2 than FIR No.378/2009. From the contents of the rejection order, it is revealed that in FIR lodged at Police Station Karghani, District Jaipur, registration number of Bolero Jeep is RJ-4-UB-1921 but in FIR No.44/2010, PS Kotwali, Jhunjhunu, number of vehicle was RJ-4-UB-0192, showing that number plate of the vehicle was changed. In cases of this nature, where the accused petitioner despite grant of repeated indulgence by the courts in number of cases, is found to be repeatedly indulging in similar offences thereby continuously misusing the liberty and has thus become a menace to the society. His personal liberty in such circumstances shall have to be balanced as against the interest of the society at large. This bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in FIR No.102/2010 is accordingly rejected. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. anil/-