[2025:RJ-JP:42336] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous IInd Bail Application No. 9897/2025 Sheeshram S/o Madho Singh, Resident Of Tapau Saipur, Police Station Sone Ka Gurja, District Dholpur (Raj.). (At Present In District Jail, Dholpur) ----Accused-Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anil Jain with Mr. Udit Sapra For Respondent(s) : Mr. Manvendra Singh Shekhawat, P.P. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL Judgment / Order 16/10/2025 The present second bail application has been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The petitioner has been arrested in connection with FIR No.0221/2020 registered at Police Station Bari Sadar, District Dholpur for the offence(s) under Section(s) 147, 148, 149, 332, 353, 307, 400 & 216-A of IPC, under Section(s) 3/25 of the Arms (Amendment) Act, 2019 (for short “the Act of 2019”) and under Section 11 of the Rajasthan Dacoity Affected Areas Act, 1986 (for brevity “the Act of 1986”) and later on for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 332, 353, 307, 400, 216-A & 472 of IPC, under Section(s) 3/25 of the Act of 2019 and under Section 11 of the Act of 1986. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that injury on the person of injured-Awdesh leading to the offence under Section 307 [2025:RJ-JP:42336] (2 of 4) [CRLMB-9897/2025] IPC is not attributed to him. He further submits that the petitioner is in custody since 06.10.2023 and no prosecution witness has been examined so far. Qua his criminal antecedents, learned counsel submits that co-accused Omveer @ Laden having criminal antecedents more in number than him, has already been extended benefit of bail by a coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 18.09.2021. He, therefore, prays for release of the petitioner on bail. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the prayer. Heard. Considered. As per the material available on record, the petitioner was a member of the gang of dacoits which, in furtherance of its common object, opened gunfire on the police party resulting into injuries including a gunshot injury on the person of Awdesh- Constable leading to the offence under Section 307 IPC amongst others. As per the factual report dated 20.08.2025 furnished by the Station House Officer, Police Station Bari Sadar, District Dolpur, fifteen criminal cases are registered against the petitioner other than the present one spreading from the year 2018 till the year 2023 and most of the cases are identical in nature involving the offences under the provisions of the Act of 1986 as well. A co-ordinate Bench of this Court has, in the case of Vijay Kumar Meena Vs. State-2008 (4) RLW 3041, held as under:- “Although pendency of a criminal case as such may not always be a bar for grant of bail, but if it is shown that in spite of indulgence repeatedly shown by the Court, an accused has been continuously misusing such liberty and involving himself time and again in [2025:RJ-JP:42336] (3 of 4) [CRLMB-9897/2025] similar and other nature of offences, this may by itself be a reason for refusal of bail. And that can be done if the Court on the basis of material on record is satisfied that the accused has been repeatedly involving himself in so large number of cases and at such regular intervals, that he can be safely treated as a habitual offender. Grant of bail no doubt is an issue which concerns the liberty of a citizen. But at the same time, if an accused is shown to frequently and habitually indulge himself in commission of crimes one after the other and becomes a menace to the society, that liberty is required to be balanced against the larger interest of the society. Apart from merits of the case, when it is shown that he has been committing offences with impunity in such a manner that letting him free would again expose the society to the offences that such habitual offender might again commit, the bail application of such an accused can be refused on consideration of his antecedents alone.” (emphasis supplied) Since, the petitioner is indulging in the cases of similar and grievous in nature again and again, this Court is not inclined to extend him bail. Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner based on parity, does not merit acceptance. A perusal of the order dated 18.09.2021 passed by a coordinate Bench of this Court extending the benefit of bail to the co-accused Omveer @ Laden does not reflect that he had any criminal antecedents or that the same was taken into consideration by this Court. Resultantly, this criminal miscellaneous second bail application is dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. [2025:RJ-JP:42336] (4 of 4) [CRLMB-9897/2025] However, Looking to the length of custody of the petitioner, the learned trial Court is requested to expedite the trial. (MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J Manish/1