[2025:RJ-JP:20650] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 2nd Bail Application No. 6303/2025 Pappu @ Jadnar S/o Shivcharan, R/o Bhavutipura, Police Station Sone Ka Gurja, District Dholpur, Raj. (At Present Confined In Central Jail Ajmer). ----Petitioner Versus State of Rajasthan, through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Jagmohan Bhardwaj For Respondent(s) : Mr. Amit Punia, Public Prosecutor HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA Order 15/05/2025 1. The instant second bail application has been filed under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 on behalf of accused-petitioner in connection with FIR No.7/2008 registered at Police Station Basai Dang, District Dholpur for the offences under Sections 143, 353 and 307 IPC and Section 11 of the RDA Act. 2. First bail application of the petitioner bearing S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.888/2024 was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 31.08.2024 after having taking into consideration the fact that as many as 54 other criminal cases are pending against the accused-petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in many of the case, the accused-petitioner has been acquitted from the charge levelled against him and in other cases he has already been enlarged on bail. [2025:RJ-JP:20650] (2 of 2) [CRLMB-6303/2025] 4. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail application. 5. Considered the submissions made at bar and also perused the material available on record. 6. The basis principle for enlarging an accused on bail is that he may not suffer custody without being held guilty. 7. While granting bail it is also a general condition that an accused should not be involved in any criminal case in future because if he is found involved in the other criminal case after being released on bail that would amount misuse of liberty of bail. 8. In the present case, the petitioner is being found involved in one after another as many as 54 criminal cases which clearly shows that the accused-petitioner regularly misusing liberty of bail and thus, in these facts the petitioner does not deserves to be enlarged on bail. 9. Accordingly, this second bail application is dismissed. (GANESH RAM MEENA),J Ashish Kumar /12