[2026:RJ-JP:13418] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 13058/2025 Rajesh Urang S/o Sri Bidu Urang, Aged About 47 Years, R/o Hati Ali Dhirang, Post Digoliya, Police Station Tangarwat, District Dibrugarh, Asam. At Present House No. 145, Basundhara Colony-1, Village Dahmikalan, Bagru Ps-Bagru Jaipur (Raj) (At Present Confined In Central Jail, Jaipur). ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. S.S. Solanki with Mr. Anand Sharma For Respondent(s) : Ms. Arti Sharma, PP Mr. M.S. Shekhawat, PP Mr. Shiv Kumar, Dy.SP, SOG, Jaipur Mr. J.P. Gupta for HPCL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 25/03/2026 1. This bail application under Section 483 of BNSS has been filed on behalf of the petitioner, who has been arrested in connection with FIR No.31/2025 registered at Police Station Special Police Station (SOG), District ATS & SOG for offences punishable under Sections 287, 303(2) & 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, (in short ‘BNS’) 2023, Section 15(2) of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Amendment Act, 2011 and Section 3 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984. After completion of investigation, police filed charge-sheet in this matter for offences punishable under Sections 287, 303(2) & 61(2) of the BNS 2023, [2026:RJ-JP:13418] (2 of 6) [CRLMB-13058/2025] Sections 15(2), 15(4) & 16 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Amendment Act, 2011 and Section 3 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984. 2. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the accused-petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is not the registered owner of House No.145, situated at Vasundhara Colony, Dehmikalan, Bagru, and he is merely residing there as a tenant. Counsel contends that the actual masterminds behind the alleged activities are one Shravan Singh Sardar, his brother-in-law Dharmendra alias Rinku Singh, the wife of Shravan Singh, and certain other persons who are not known to the petitioner. It is argued that the petitioner has neither any ownership nor any control over the premises in question and as such, there is no substantive material available on record to connect the petitioner with the alleged offence. It is submitted that there are no criminal antecedents against the petitioner and trial will take considerable time in its conclusion. Counsel contends that the petitioner is in custody since 11.06.2025 and further custody of the petitioner would not serve any fruitful purpose. 3. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor and Mr. J.P. Gupta who is appearing on behalf of HPCL have vehemently opposed the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner. It is submitted that grave and serious allegations have been levelled against the petitioner. The petitioner, in connivance with co-accused persons, has committed theft of diesel from the HPCL pipeline by installing [2026:RJ-JP:13418] (3 of 6) [CRLMB-13058/2025] an illegal iron valve with the aid of a welding machine. The said valve was connected to the main pipeline, and an additional pipeline was laid through an underground tunnel for the purpose of illegal extraction of diesel. It is further submitted that the said act posed a grave and imminent risk to public safety. The process of installing the valve involved welding on a live pipeline carrying highly inflammable substance. In the event that sparks generated during welding had come into contact with the diesel, or if any leakage or rupture of the pipeline had occurred, the same could have resulted in a catastrophic incident, including fire or explosion, thereby endangering the lives and property of residents of nearby villages and colonies. It is also submitted that several incriminating articles were recovered from the possession of the petitioner including eight pipes, two shovels, one iron hammer, one iron spade, four spools of thread, seven iron sockets, and two iron plugs, which prima facie indicate the involvement of the petitioner in the commission of the alleged offence. It is submitted that the petitioner has committed an offence punishable under Section 15(4) of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Amendment Act, 2011 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 2011”). It is submitted that considering the stringent conditions and rigours imposed under Section 16C of the Act, petitioner does not deserve indulgence of bail. 4. For a thorough evaluation, it would be appropriate to reproduce Sections 15 and 16C of the Act of 2011 which reads as under: [2026:RJ-JP:13418] (4 of 6) [CRLMB-13058/2025] “Section 15- Penalty. (1) Whoever wilfully obstructs any person in doing any of the acts authorised by section 4 or section 7 or section 8 or wilfully fills up, destroys, damages or displaces any trench or mark made under section 4 or wilfully does any act prohibited under section 9, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months or with fine or with both. (2) Whoever wilfully makes or causes to make any unauthorised connection with or removes, destroys, damages or displaces any pipeline laid under section 7, or wilfully inserts any device to extract petroleum product or minerals from such pipeline, or wilfully disrupts supplies being made through the pipeline, shall be punishable with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years and shall also be liable to fine. (3) If any person convicted of an offence under sub-section (2) is again convicted of an offence under the same provision, he shall be punishable with rigorous imprisonment for the second and for every subsequent offence for a term which shall not be less than three years but which may extend to ten years: Provided that the court may, for any adequate and special reasons to be mentioned in the judgment, impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than three years. (4) Whoever, with the intent to cause or knowing that he is likely to cause damage to or destruction of any pipeline laid under section 7, causes by fire, explosive substance or otherwise damage to the pipeline being used for transportation of petroleum products, crude oil or gas with the intent to commit sabotage or with the knowledge that such act is so imminently dangerous that it may in all probability cause death of any person or such bodily injury likely to cause death of any person, shall be punishable with rigorous imprisonment which shall not be less than ten years but may extend to imprisonment for life or death. [2026:RJ-JP:13418] (5 of 6) [CRLMB-13058/2025] Section 16C. Provisions as to bail. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), no person accused of an offence punishable under sub-section (4) of section 15 shall, if in custody, be released on bail or on his own bond unless-- (a) the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application for such release; and (b) where the Public Prosecutor opposes the application, the court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. (2) The limitations on granting of bail specified in sub-section (1) are in addition to the limitations under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) or any other law for the time being in force on granting of bail. (3) Nothing contained in this section shall be deemed to affect the special powers of the High Court regarding bail under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974)”. 5. I have considered the contentions. 6. The section 16C of the Act of 2011 imposes stringent conditions for the grant of bail. The said provision clearly mandates that no person accused of an offence under the Act shall be released on bail unless the Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. In the present case, no material has been placed on record to satisfy this Court that the petitioner is prima facie not involved in the alleged offence. 7. Considering the fact that there is a serious allegation against the petitioner of stealing diesel from the HPCL pipeline by [2026:RJ-JP:13418] (6 of 6) [CRLMB-13058/2025] installing an illegal iron valve with the aid of a welding machine, as also considering the fact that if any leakage or rupture of the pipeline had occurred during the welding, the same could have resulted in a major accident causing fire or explosion, thereby causing grave danger to the lives and property of residents of nearby villages and colonies, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. 8. Accordingly, this Bail Application stands dismissed. 9. The observations made hereinabove are only for decision of the bail application and would not have any impact on the trial of the case in any manner. (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J Manoj Solanki/22