[2025:RJ-JP:9458] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 16417/2024 Rahul @ Rohit S/o Suryaprakash Soni @ Suraj Prakash Soni, R/o Lal Bheru Pada Kaithunipol, Thana Kaithunipol, Kota, At Present Tenant At Sidheshwar Mahadev Mandir Ke Pass Bus Stand, Thana Kotwali Jhabua (M.p.) (Presently Confined In Central Jail Kota). ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Majhar Hussain For Respondent(s) : Mr. M.S. Shekhawat, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 04/03/2025 1. The instant bail application has been filed under Section 483 of BNSS, on behalf of the petitioner, who has been arrested in connection with FIR No.494/2024 registered at Police Station Mahavir Nagar, District Kota City (Raj.) for the offence punishable under Section 304(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (in short ‘BNS’), 2023. Later on, police filed charge-sheet in this matter for the offences punishable under Sections 304(2) & 317(2) of BNS, 2023 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. Counsel submits that alleged incident took place on 26.10.2024 while matter was reported to the police on 24.11.2024 after a delay of almost one month for which no reasonable explanation is available on record. It is [2025:RJ-JP:9458] (2 of 2) [CRLMB-16417/2024] submitted that as per FIR, weight of the gold chain is 10 gms while the article which was recovered from the possession of the petitioner weighed 7.3 gms which shows that same article has not been recovered. It is submitted that alleged offences are triable by Magistrate and maximum punishment for the alleged offence is three years. Charge-sheet has been filed & trial will take considerable time in its conclusion. Petitioner is in custody since 29.11.2024 and further custody of the petitioner would not serve any fruitful purpose. 3. Learned State Counsel vehemently opposes the bail application and submits that petitioner is a habitual offender as 32 other cases have been registered against him. It is submitted that 15 out of the 32 cases are of similar nature and he has been convicted in those cases. 4. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the arguments advanced at bar, more particularly the fact that petitioner is a habitual offender and he has been convicted in 15 cases which are of similar nature, I do not find it a fit case to enlarge the petitioner on bail. 5. Accordingly, this bail application is dismissed. (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J GAUTAM JAIN /70