[2026:RJ-JP:9828] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 16965/2025 Mayur Jadhav S/o Shri Chandrakant Bhai Jadhav, Aged About 36 Years, R/o House No. A-24, Sayyaji Park Society, Ajwa Road, Behind The Sayya Ji Park Busstand, Ps Bapoda, Distt. Vadodara, Gujrat ( At Present Confined In Central Jail Jaipur) ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Udit Sapra For Respondent(s) : : Mr. Tapesh Agarwal, PP Mr. Sanjay Gangwar Mr. Shiv Kumar Bhardwaj, RPS HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SANGEETA SHARMA Order 06/03/2026 1. This bail application has been filed on behalf of the accused- petitioner under Section 483 of B.N.S.S. in connection with FIR No. 05/2024 registered at Police Station SOG District Jaipur, ATS and SOG for the offence(s) under Sections 285, 379, 411, 440 and 120-B of IPC, Section 15(1), 15(2), 15(3), 15(4) & 16 of Petroleum and Mineral Pipelines Act, Sections 3 & 4 of Explosive Substances Act, 1908 and Sections 3 and 4 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 and Section 7 of Essential Commodities Act, 1955. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has been falsely implicated in this matter, he is not named in the FIR, he does not have any criminal antecedents. Learned counsel also submits that charge-sheet has been filed. Learned counsel further [2026:RJ-JP:9828] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-16965/2025] submits that petitioner is behind the bars since long and conclusion of trial will take its own time, so no fruitful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner in custody and therefore, prays that the petitioner may be granted the benefit of bail under Section 483 of BNSS. 3. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for IOCL vehemently opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner hereinabove and submits that petitioner is a habitual offender as four other cases of similar nature have been registered against him in the state of Gujrat; which are as under:- क. सं. मुकदमा नमर, ददनांक धारा पुदलस थाना पुदलस नतीजा साथी अदभयुक 1 196 / 2005 धारा 379, 511, 120 बी भादसं व 3 सावरजननक संपनत नुकसान ननवारण अनधननयम 1984, पुनलस थाना एटीएस गुजरात चालान ननशान कनणरक 2 137 / 2008 धारा 379, 511, 120 बी भादसं व 3 सावरजननक संपनत नुकसान ननवारण अनधननयम 1984, पुनलस थाना एटीएस गुजरात चालान 3 525 / 2020 नदनांक 05.07.2020 धारा 379, 285, 247, 120 बी भादसं व 3 सावरजननक संपनत नुकसान ननवारण अनधननयम 1984, पुनलस थाना वाकानेर नजला मोरबी गुजरात चालान संदीप गुपा उरर सेनी व ननशान कनणरक 4 03 / 2021 नदनांक 08.02.2021 धारा 379, 120 बी, भादसं एवं धारा 15(2)(4) पेट्ोनलयम एवं नमनरल पाइप लाइन एक 1962, व GUJCTOC ACT पुनलस थाना एटीएस गुजरात जेर अनुसंधान चालान जेर अनुसंधान संदीप गुपा उरर सेनी व ननशान कनणरक 4. Learned Public Prosecutor further submits that petitioner has active involvement in illegal extraction of oil for the purpose of stealing and thereby he has put the nearby area at high risk as the petroleum projects are highly inflammable. 5. While opposing the bail application, learned Public Prosecutor has further referred the Section 16(c) of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 wherein it is provided that no person accused of an offence punishable under Sub-Section(4) of Section 15 shall, if in custody, be released on bail unless the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application for such release and where [2026:RJ-JP:9828] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-16965/2025] the Public Prosecutor opposes the application, the Court is satisfied that there are reasonable ground for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. It is also contended that the bail application is liable to be rejected as the rigour of the aforesaid provision is applicable in the instant case. 6. Considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case along with applicability of the rigour of Section 16(c), criminal antecedents of the petitioner wherein the main accused of this case namely Sandeep Gupta @ Sandy and Nishant Karnik @ Nishant Kiran Karnik are also co-accused, who are habitual offenders. It is pertinent to mention that the bail applications filed by the co-accused Sandeep Gupta @ Sandy and Nishant Karnik @ Nishant Kiran Karnik in this case have been dismissed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 03.02.2025 in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.15322/2024 and 03.09.2025 in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 6763/2025 respectively. 7. In these backdrop, looking to the gravity of the offence, the degree of high risk and danger involved and criminal antecedents of the petitioner-accused, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. 8. Accordingly, the present criminal misc. bail application is dismissed. (SANGEETA SHARMA),J HEENA/39