IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR ORDER S.B. Criminal Misc.3rd Bail Application No.438/2010 Suresh vs. State of Rajasthan Dated : 15.01.2010 HON'BLE MR. MAHESH BHAGWATI,J. Mr. Ram Swaroop Meena, for the petitioner. Mr. Amit Punia, Public Prosecutor for the State. This order governs the disposal of third bail application filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. by Mr. Ram Swaroop Meena Advocate on behalf of the applicant Suresh pertaining to F.I.R. No. 392/2009 of Police Station Neem Ka Thana, District Sikar, in the offences under Sections 19/54 of Rajasthan Excise Act. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner 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 that one co-accused Sunil, who was earlier absconding has been released on bail by the learned trial court. Petitioner has been in custody since 24.07.2009. Police, after completion of investigation, has filed the charge-sheet in the court, which has been pending trial. Learned trial court has recorded the statements of only two witnesses so far, which indicates that the trial of the case shall take more time, hence, the petitioner may be granted indulgence of bail. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail application. 5. Having reflected over the submissions made at the bar and scanned the relevant material available on record, it is noticed that the first bail petition of the petitioner was dismissed on the ground that he was involved in more than two criminal cases, which had been pending against him. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been acquitted in three criminal cases and in three more criminal cases, compromise took place between the parties. Now, it is only one case left, which has been pending for trial and that too is in the offence under Section 19/54 of Rajasthan Excise Act. Undeniably and undisputably, the antecedents of the petitioner have remained blemished. He is a habitual offender. I do not find any good ground to change my earlier view, hence, the third bail petition filed on behalf of the petitioner also deserves to be dismissed. 6. In the result, the third bail petition filed on behalf of the petitioner Suresh under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. stands dismissed. 7. However, keeping in view the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned trial court is directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same preferably within a period of three months. (MAHESH BHAGWATI),J. Mak/- s-10