[2026:RJ-JP:18099] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 4188/2026 Shiv Kumar @ Shiva S/o Prakash, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Chayasa, District Faridabad (Haryana) (At Present In Central Jail Deeg In Custody Since 14/01/2026). ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anuj Rohila For Respondent(s) : Mr. Jaiprakash Tiwari, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAMIL KUMAR MATHUR Order 29/04/2026 1. The petitioner has preferred this bail application under Section 483 of BNSS in FIR No.497/2025 registered at Police Station Kaman, District Deeg for offences under Sections 318(4) and 316(2) of BNS, 2023. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor and perused the material available on record. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. No recovery of any kind has been effected from the present petitioner. It is also submitted that learned trial Court had dismissed the bail application of the accused-petitioner on the ground that the accused-petitioner is also involved in so many other cases. He further submits that merely on the basis of criminal antecedents, bail cannot be denied. Petitioner is behind the bars since 14.01.2026. The trial of [2026:RJ-JP:18099] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-4188/2026] the case will take considerable time and no fruitful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner in further custody, consequently, the bail application deserves to be allowed. He further relied upon the following judgments:- (i) Abhimanue Etc. v. State of Kerala, reported in 2025 Supreme (SC) 1716; (ii) Prabhakar Tewari v. State of U.P. & Anr., reported in 2020 Supreme (SC) 75; and (iii) Narendra Singh @ Nandu Shooter v. State of Rajasthan, S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 2355/2020, decided on 20.04.2020. 4. On the contrary, learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the bail application and submitted that the accused- petitioner is a habitual offender in committing serious crime. He, with intention of cheating, took Rs.2,50,000/- from the complainant by tricking him to exchange and fled away. He further contends that the criminal past of the petitioner with 31 cases mostly related to similar nature of cases demonstrates his dishonest intention to dupe innocent victims and cheat them. Learned Public Prosecutor argued that though the liberty is important but it is equally important for the Court to recognize the potential threat to life and liberty of victims which cannot be ignored while considering bail as it has got definite impact on the society. The learned Public Prosecutor further placed reliance on the following judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court:- (i) Sudha Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., reported in 2021 INSC 271 (a three-Judge Bench decision), [2026:RJ-JP:18099] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-4188/2026] (ii) State of Karnataka v. Sri Darshan Etc., reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1702, and (iii) Rakesh Mittal v. Ajay Pal Gupta & Another reported in (2026) 3 S.C.R. 220. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of bail. 5. On consideration of the rival submissions and material available on record and in light of the submissions made by learned Public Prosecutor, especially the nature of allegations coupled with the fact of criminal past of similar nature of cases pending against the petitioner, this Court is of the view that petitioner does not deserve the indulgence of bail. The criminal antecedents clearly indicates a pattern of repeated involvement in similar offences, which dis-entitles the petitioner from the discretionary relief of bail. 6. Accordingly, the bail application under Section 483 B.N.S.S. is hereby dismissed. (PRAMIL KUMAR MATHUR),J Arun/32