1 6 S.B.CRIMINAL MISC.SECOND BAIL APPLICATION NO.4742/2009 Bilal Khan & Anr. Vs. The State of Rajasthan DATE OF ORDER : 15th September 2009 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI Mr.Hemant Dutt,for the petitioner. Mr.Ashok Prajapat, Public Prosecutor for State. .... BY THE COURT The petitioners are accused of offence under Section 379 IPC. The first bail application as moved on behalf of the petitioners was dismissed as not pressed on 09.07.2009. It is submitted that since thereafter challan has been filed in the matter on 11.08.2009 and the petitioners are in custody since June 2009 for alleged involvement in the petty offence, said to be of theft of a 'cooler body folding press machine' of the value not more than Rs.2,000/-. It is also submitted that the second bail application as moved by the petitioners before the learned Sessions Judge has been rejected by the order dated 18.08.2009 without the learned Judge examining properly the record of the case. It is pointed out with reference to the observations as made in para 5 of the order dated 18.08.2009 that the particulars of pending 2 cases, as stated therein relate to the other accused Shakura and not to the petitioners. True it is that the observations as made by the learned Sessions Judge in para 5 of the order dated 18.08.2009 are erroneous inasmuch as the particulars stated therein do not relate to the petitioners but then, the involvement of the petitioners in different criminal cases cannot be denied. As per the facts regarding criminal record of the petitioners (at page 28 of the challan papers filed by the petitioners), four cases of varying nature including the one for the offence under Section 3/25 of the Arms Act, another for offence under Section 326/34 IPC, and yet another for offence under Section 382 IPC are pending against the petitioner No.1. Similarly, the petitioner No.2 is also said to be involved in four cases. Of course, he is said to have been acquitted in one of them after compromise but another case remains pending for offence under Section 326/34 IPC that seems to be common to both these petitioners. Looking to the past record of the petitioners, even when the present case is said to be related to the offence under Section 379 IPC, this Court does not feel inclined to grant indulgence to the petitioners at this stage. 3 This second bail application moved by the petitioners Bilal Khan and Richhpal under Section 439 Cr.P.C. stands rejected. However, the learned Trial Court may consider the fact that the bail plea of the petitioners has been rejected for their involvement in previous criminal cases; and try to proceed expeditiously with the trial of the case. (DINESH MAHESHWARI),J. s.soni