CRLMB3675/2010 // 1 // IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR ORDER IN S.B. Cr. Misc. Bail Application No.3675/2010 Rajendra @ Raju Vs. State of Rajasthan through Public Prosecutor Date of Order ::: 06.07.2010 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mohammad Rafiq Shri Rajeev Sogarwal, Counsel for petitioner Shri Amit Punia, Public Prosecutor #### By the Court:- Heard learned counsel for petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor and perused the material made available to me during the arguments of the case. Learned counsel for petitioner has argued that the case of the petitioner is identical to that of co-accused Pappu @ Om prakash Meena, The bail of co-accused Pappu @ Om Prakash Meena was rejected by the court of Sessions on the ground that five cases are pending against him, however, he has been enlarged on bail by a coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 22.02.2010 in S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No.1791/2010. The petitioner's application for bail was rejected by the court of Sessions merely because ten cases are pending against him and that by itself cannot be a reason to refuse the bail to him during the trial, more particularly when the challan has been filed long back and trial of the case is awaiting completion. Perusal of rejection order passed in the case of Pappu @ Om Prakash reveals that the court of Sessions, Dausa was not inclined to grant him bail on consideration of the fact about pendency of some cases but those cases, even if the argument of CRLMB3675/2010 // 2 // party is considered, are only five in number. That cannot a reason to ignore the fact that double the number of that i.e. 10 cases are pending against the petitioner and that too of similar nature i.e. of theft, and accused, who has been granted indulgence by the court, misused such liberty by repeatedly involving himself in similar offences one after the other and has thus become a menace to the society. His liberty has to be therefore balanced as against the interest of the society at large. I am therefore not inclined to grant bail to the accused-petitioner. The bail application is accordingly rejected. However, the learned trial court is impressed upon to expedite the trial of the case and complete the same as early as possible. (Mohammad Rafiq) J. //Jaiman//