[2025:RJ-JP:38058] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 6763/2025 Nishant Karnik @ Nishant Kiran Karnik S/o Shri Kiran Karnik @ Kiran Ganesh Karnik, Aged About 39 Years, R/o B-42, Pancham Duplex Dhabai Ring Road Soma Talab, Police Tation Wadi, District Vadodara, Gujarat Currently Residing At B-12, Moti Nagar-Ii, Tarsali, Police Station Makarpura, District Vadodara, Gujarat. (Presently Confined At District Jail, Mathura). ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Harsh Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shree Ram Dhakar, PP Mr. Manvendra Singh Choudhary, PP Mr. Sanjay Gangwar, for complainant HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 03/09/2025 1. This bail application under Section 483 BNSS has been filed on behalf of the petitioner who is in custody in connection with FIR No.05/2024 PS Special Police Station (SOG), Jaipur District ATS & SOJ for offences under Sections 285, 379, 411, 440, 120B IPC, Sections 15(1) and 15(2) of Petroleum & Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962, Sections 15(3), 15(4) and 16 of Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Amendment Act, 2011, Section 3, 4 of Explosives Substances Act, 1984 and Sections 3,4 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984. [2025:RJ-JP:38058] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-6763/2025] 2. Learned counsel for the accused petitioners submit that the accused petitioners have falsely been implicated in this case. He submits that petitioner is not named in the FIR. He submits that prior to the alleged date of incident i.e. 07.02.2024, the petitioner was in custody since 20.10.2023 in connection with other case and thus, it is clear that the petitioner was not involved in the alleged incident of theft of crude-oil. He argues that only on the basis of his previous involvement in similar offences, he has been implicated in this case. He submits that investigation has been completed and charge sheet has been filed whereas trial will take long time in its conclusion. As regards to his previous involvement in other cases, learned counsel argues that in seven cases, he has been granted benefit of bail whereas in two cases, he has been aqcuitted. either bailed Further custody of the petitioner would not serve any fruitful purpose as nothing is to be recovered from him. 3. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the IOCL oppose the bail application. It is contended that petitioner is a habitual offender as 11 other cases of similar nature have been registered against him. It is also contended that merely petitioner was in custody in connection with other case at the relevant time of alleged incident, does not indicate his innocence. Specific and detailed role has been assigned to the petitioner in the charge sheet. The petitioner along with other accused persons were involved illegally extracting crude oil and thereby put the entire pipeline and nearby area at great risk as the petroleum products are highly inflammable. Opposing the bail application, Section 16 C of the Petroleum Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 is also referred. It is submitted [2025:RJ-JP:38058] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-6763/2025] that as per Section 16C, no person accused of an offence punishable under sub-section (4) of Section 15 shall, if in custody, be released on bail on his own bond unless the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application for such release and where the Public Prosecutor opposes the application, the Court is satisfied that there are reasonable ground for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. They argue that since rigour of the aforesaid Section is applicable in the instant case, bail should not be granted to the accused petitioners. 4. Looking to the role attributed to the petitioner in the charge sheet and criminal antecedents of similar nature of the accused petitioner as also considering the seriousness of allegations and gravity of offences and the degree of high risk and danger involved in it, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioners on bail. Accordingly, the bail applications are dismissed. 5. The observation made hereinabove is only for decision of these bail applications and will not impact trial in any manner. (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J CHARU SONI /79