[2025:RJ-JP:46818] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal 2nd Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 14242/2025 Rajkumar @ Raju Katiyar S/o Babulal Katiyar, Aged About 47 Years, R/o Village Ranisar Bas, M.s. College Ke Pass, Reserve Police Line Ke Pichhe, Police Station Sadar, District Bikaner At Present Gali No. 05, Rampura Basti, Bikaner, (Rajasthan) (At Present Confined In Central Jail, Jaipur). ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pradeep Bochaliya For Respondent(s) : Mr. Manvendra Singh Choudhary, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Order 17/11/2025 1. The present bail application under Section 483 of BNSS is filed by the applicant-accused Rajkumar @ Raju Katiyar S/o Babulal Katiyar seeking bail in respect of a criminal case registered as FIR No.314/2025 dated 18.05.2025 registered at P.S. Karnivihar, District – Jaipur (West), for the offence under Sections 303(2), 317(2) of BNS. 2. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the matter and the investigation against him is complete and he is no more required in investigation. He further submits that there are no chance of fleeing of applicant accused from the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court. He also submits that the [2025:RJ-JP:46818] (2 of 4) [CRLMB-14242/2025] applicant undertakes not to repeat offence and cooperate with investigation/trial, which will take time. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that first bail application of petitioner was dismissed by this Court on 08.09.2025 on the ground that the petitioner is involved continuously in criminal cases. He further submitted that two other accused Harpreet @ Aman @ Gagan is granted bail by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Hon’ble Court even considering the fact that there were 12 criminal cases registered against him. He further submitted that only 9 criminal cases were registered against the petitioner, therefore he is entitled to be released on bail. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the bail application and submitted that the allegations are grave and serious in nature. He also filed a report received from concerned Police Station. 5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner-accused and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material placed on record by both the parties. 6. On 08.09.2025, this Court has considered the first bail application of petitioner and dismissed the same considering the entire material including filing of charge-sheet. The relevant part is reproduced as under: “After theft of a Scorpio vehicle of complainant Anil Kumar in the night of 18.05.2025 a report is registered on very same day and police has investigated the matter. During investigation police has found involvement of Yogesh Kumar, Harpreet @ Aman @ Gagan and Raj Kumar @ [2025:RJ-JP:46818] (3 of 4) [CRLMB-14242/2025] Raju. The vehicle is not recovered by police, but police has already filed a charge-sheet against three persons. There are nine criminal cases against the petitioner accused out of which two are under investigation and petitioner accused is in custody in both the matters. Present case is not included in the list of nine cases shown against the petitioner accused. The petitioner accused is continuously indulged in commission of theft.” 7. The report submitted by police indicated that three persons Yogesh, Harpreet @ Aman @ Gagan and Raj Kumar were arrested by police on 01.07.2025. The police report indicated that 19 criminal cases were registered against Harpreet whereas 9 criminal cases were registered against Rajkumar and 14 against Yogesh Kumar Jangara. 8. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 06.11.2025 while considering bail application of Harpreet @ Aman @ Gagan has allowed the bail application. The material on record indicated that there were 19 criminal cases against Harpreet @ Aman @ Gagan. The connected file relating to Yogesh Kumar (bail application No.13776/2025) is still in defect and no order has been passed in favour of Yogesh Kumar. 9. When we have considered first bail application on 08.09.2025, a charge-sheet was already filed and now no stage has changed. This Court has decided bail application of Raj Kumar on merits. 10. In case of State of U.P. through CBI v. Amarmani Tripathi, (2005) 8 SCC 21 and further referred and relied in case of State of Karnataka Vs. Sri Darshan Etc. 2025 [2025:RJ-JP:46818] (4 of 4) [CRLMB-14242/2025] INSC 979 Hon’ble Supreme Court has referred criminal antecedents as one of the grounds not to grant bail to accused therefore considering the criminal antecedent and regular involvement of accused in identical nature of cases, it is not a fit case to enlarge petitioner on bail. 11. There is all likelihood that present petitioner may again indulge in criminal case after being released on bail and same is evidence from the continuous involvement in offence from year 2018 onwards, therefore, no case is made out for grant on bail on ground of parity in case of Harpreet @ Aman @ Gagan. 12. The facts and the material indicate that the alleged offence are of serious nature and role attributed to applicant is prima facie sufficient to consider complicity of applicant in the crime. Therefore, at this juncture, considering the evidence collected so far, this is not a fit case to enlarge the applicant accused on bail. 13. Considering the gravity of allegations and overall facts and circumstances of the case, it is appropriate to dismiss the bail application of the applicant accused at this stage. 14. Accordingly, the application for bail filed under Section 483 of BNSS preferred by Rajkumar @ Raju Katiyar S/o Babulal Katiyar, is hereby dismissed. (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J PREETI VALECHA /548