IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR ORDER S.B. Criminal Misc.2nd Bail Application No.10443/2009 Pappu vs. State of Rajasthan Dated : 08.01.2010 HON'BLE MR. MAHESH BHAGWATI,J. Mr. Mohanlal Chorsia, for the petitioner. Mr. Amit Punia, Public Prosecutor for the State. Mr. Virendra Singh on behalf of Mr. G.S. Fauzdar, for J.V.V.N.L. This order governs the disposal of second bail application filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. by Mr. Mohanlal Chorsia Advocate on behalf of the applicant Pappu pertaining to F.I.R. No. 63/2009 of Police Station Morak Station, Kota Rural, in the offences under Sections 136 of Indian Electricity Act, 2003. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel appearing for JVVNL as also the learned Public Prosecutor for the State and perused the relevant material available on record. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has canvassed he has been in custody for the last eight months. The Police, after completion of investigation, has filed the charge-sheet in the court, which is pending trial. There has been no progress in the trial of the case and thus, the trial is likely to take time to complete. The petitioner has been falsely implicated and nothing has been recovered from his possession, hence, he may be granted indulgence of bail. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State as also learned counsel Mr. Virendra Singh on behalf of Mr. G.S. Fauzdar, appearing for JVVNL, have opposed the bail petition on the ground that the petitioner is a member of Gang, which has been committing the offence of alike nature. Eight criminal cases of similar nature have been pending against him, which are also pending trial. The petitioner is a habitual offender, hence, he should not be granted indulgence of bail. 5. Having reflected over the submissions made at the bar and scanned the relevant material available on record, it is noticed that the accused petitioner is a habitual offender and eight criminal cases of alike nature have been pending against him, hence, I, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case but keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, do not feel inclined to grant any indulgence of bail to the accused petitioner and his second bail petition deserves to be dismissed. 6. In the result, the second bail petition filed on behalf of the petitioner Pappu under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. stands dismissed. (MAHESH BHAGWATI),J. Mak/- 22