[2026:RJ-JP:16943] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 684/2026 Dinesh Rathi @ Anmol Rathi @ Rahul Rathi, S/o Shri Devendra Rathi, aged about 38 years, R/o C-19, Amar Colony, Karmudeen Nagar, Nagloi, Delhi, presently R/o Sector 16, Rohini F-1/210, Second Floor, Near Bye Shriram Property, New Delhi. (Presently confined at Central Jail Jaipur.) ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Madhav Mitra, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Veerendra Singh, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Ms. Nidhi Sharma, Adv. with Mr. Vaibhav Pareek, Adv. for IOCL Mr. Vivek Chaudhary, PP Mr. Shiv Kumar, I.O., RPS, SOG HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR Order 22/04/2026 1. The instant bail application has been filed under Section 483 BNSS on behalf of accused-petitioner. The accused-petitioner has been arrested in connection with FIR No.01/2025, registered at Police Station Special Police Station (SOG), District ATS and SOG for the offence(s) under Sections 287, 288, 303(2), 317(2), 324(4), 324(5), 324(6), 61(2)(a) of BNS and Sections 3, 4 of P.D.P.P. Act and Sections 7 of Essential Commodity Act, 1955 and Sections 3, 4 of Explosives Substances Act, 1908 and Section 15(2), 15(3), 15(4) and 16 of Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 2011. [2026:RJ-JP:16943] (2 of 4) [CRLMB-684/2026] 2. Learned counsel for the accused-petitioner submits that the accused-petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. It is contended that the FIR in the present case was lodged on 06.01.2025, whereas the petitioner was arrested on 25.07.2025 and thereafter, the charge-sheet was submitted on 15.10.2025. It is also contended that the other similarly placed co-accused namely; Sudeep Jindal, Vijaypal Singh Chouhan, Ashok Kumar Chouhan, Mahaveer and Vijay Singh have already been enlarged on bail by the Co-ordinate Bench vide order dated 26.11.2025. It is also argued that out of 35 antecedents shown against the petitioner, in three of them, the petitioner has been acquitted and in two other cases, he has been sentenced to the period already undergone, and in remaining most of the cases, the petitioner has already been enlarged on bail. It is further argued that no incriminating evidence is available on record to indicate that the petitioner committed the offence of stealing crude oil by laying a pipeline beneath the land, extracting 8 lakh liters of crude oil and thereafter, selling the same to other persons. It is further contended that the petitioner has been involved in the present case solely on the basis of the disclosure statements of the other co-accused and apart from such statements, there is no substantive evidence available on record to implicate the petitioner in the alleged crime. It is also contended that though there are 35 criminal antecedents shown against the petitioner, out of which few cases are of commission of offence of theft pertaining to crude oil, however, the same cannot be a ground to reject the bail application of the accused-petitioner. [2026:RJ-JP:16943] (3 of 4) [CRLMB-684/2026] 2.1. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of Taket Jerang vs. The State of Arunachal Pradesh & Anr. in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.11244/2023 dated 10.11.2023, whereby, the Hon'ble Apex Court enlarged the petitioner on bail, despite pendency of 92 cases of similar nature. It is also argued that in another case lodged against the petitioner in FIR No.196/2024, the petitioner has been granted bail by the Co-ordinate Bench, therefore, considering the aforesaid facts and long incarceration of the petitioner, the petitioner's bail application may be allowed. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant-Indian Oil Corporation Limited have vehemently opposed the bail application. It is contended by learned counsel for the complainant that the petitioner is a part of organized crime and he has been committing the same act of extracting the crude oil and against him 35 cases of similar nature are pending. It is also contended that there are ample incriminating evidence available on the record against the petitioner. The person who leased the property to the petitioner and the other co-accused has identified the petitioner in the test identification parade conducted by the Investigating Agency. It is also contended that after arrest in the present case, at the instance of the petitioner, another pipeline laid beneath the land was revealed and from where, the petitioner was extracting the crude oil, in that matter, another FIR was lodged in the State of Haryana against the petitioner. It is further contended that in another case in which the Co-ordinate Bench has granted bail to the accused-petitioner was only an attempt to extract the crude oil [2026:RJ-JP:16943] (4 of 4) [CRLMB-684/2026] and the offence could not be committed. It is argued that the other co-accused, who have been enlarged on bail, were not directly involved in extracting crude oil and they were only receivers of the crude oil, whereas one of the co-accused is still absconding, therefore, the bail application of the accused- petitioner may be dismissed. 4. Heard and perused the material available on record. 5. The person on whose land the pipeline was laid beneath has identified the accused-petitioner during investigation, the driver who was accompanying the petitioner has also identified him. The narration in the charge-sheet also reflects that at the instance of the petitioner, another case was disclosed wherein a pipeline for extracting crude oil beneath the land was found. There is long list of cases against the petitioner pertaining to similar nature of criminal acts is also placed on record and in two cases, the petitioner has already been sentenced under Section 174-A of IPC. The grant of bail in another case cannot be a ground to release the petitioner on bail, as in the present case, there are ample incriminating material available on record indicating the petitioner’s involvement in the alleged crime, therefore, considering the aforesaid facts, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the accused-petitioner on bail. 6. Accordingly, the instant bail application is hereby dismissed. (PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J Ashwani Kr Srivastava /-6