CRLMB/12350/2026 of MUKESH KUMAR SHARMA URF KADA SON OF SHRI ROOP KISHOR SHARMA Vs STATE OF RAJASTHAN on 18 August 2026

Order

18/08/2026

1. The present 4th bail application under Section 483 of BNSS is filed by the applicant-accused Mukesh Kumar Sharma @ Kada S/o Shri Roop Kishore Sharma, seeking bail in respect of a criminal case registered as FIR No. 258/2025 dated 06.06.2025 registered at P.S. Vidhyadhar Nagar, District – Jaipur City (North), for the offence under Sections 304(2) of BNS.

2. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the matter and the investigation against him is complete and he is no more required in investigation. He further submits that there are no chance of fleeing of applicant accused from the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court. The applicant does not have any criminal antecedents. He also submits that the

(2 of 5) [CRLMB-12350/2026] applicant undertakes not to repeat offence and cooperate with investigation/trial, which will take time.

3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the offence is triable by Magistrate First Class and all material witnesses have already been examined. He also submitted that the complainant is not an eyewitness, so other witnesses. He further referred the evidence recorded so far and submitted that the victim has been examined as PW-4 and her admission in cross-examination indicate that she was also informed by police about identification of the petitioner. He also submitted that the petitioner was taken custody after taking him on production warrant and further arrest in the instant case. He also referred evidence of PW-1 Kamlesh, PW-2 Manish, and submitted that both the witnesses are not an eyewitness. At last, he referred the details of case mentioned against the petitioner and submitted that in one of the case petitioner was acquitted, but in other case the petitioner has been granted bail.

4. Learned counsel has further referred order dated 14-8-2023 in Sajid Khan Vs. State of Rajasthan and Anr., SLP (Criminal) 2290/2023, and submitted that on the basis of period of custody, Hon’ble Supreme Court has granted bail. He also referred order dated 27-7-2026 in Bail Application No. 1064/2026, Narendra Kumar @ Monu Rana Vs. State, and submitted that despite criminal antecedents and period of custody, the court has granted bail to accused petitioner. He further referred judgment in case of Prabhakar Tewari Vs. State of UP AIR Online 2020 SCC

(3 of 5) [CRLMB-12350/2026] 96, and submitted that despite criminal antecedents, accused was released on bail. He also referred judgment in case of Mohsin Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, reported in 2026 MPHC JBP 22727 and submitted that in similar circumstances accused was released on bail.

5. Learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the bail application and submitted that the allegations are grave and serious in nature.

6. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner-accused and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material placed on record by both the parties.

7. First bail application of present petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn on 20-8-2025, and second bail application was dismissed on merits on 15-10-2025, wherein we have observed as under: "On 06.06.2025, two unknown bikers have snatched a chain of victim and report is registered. During investigation, present applicant was arrested and after investigation a charge-sheet is filed against him. The material on record clearly indicate that 9 criminal cases were registered against applicant and 5 are of similar nature registered at different police stations of Jaipur whereas two under Sections 392 and one under Section 395 of IPC. It is apparent on record that applicant is regularly indulging in criminal activities."

8. Third bail application of present petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn on 20-1-2026.

9. Now, as per learned counsel, four witnesses have been examined, which include PW-4 victim. We have considered statement of PW-3 Kanav Dagayach and PW-4 victim. Also considered statement of PW-1 Kamlesh and PW-2 Manish,

(4 of 5) [CRLMB-12350/2026] who are not eyewitnesses. The incident was witnessed by PW-3 and he followed the assailants, but the assailants fled on motorcycle. PW-4 has identified the accused.

10. No doubt about the fact that the offence is triable by Magistrate and present petitioner is in custody since 14-7- 2025, and period of custody is 15 months. The trial court has recorded statement of four witnesses. The petitioner was taken on production warrant. Despite all these facts, there are ten criminal cases against the petitioner, out of which one has been disposed of. Except one case, all are of identical nature.

11. In case of Prabhakar Tewari versus State of UP (supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court has granted bail despite criminal antecedents. In case of Mohsin Vs. State of M.P., (supra), a coordinate Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court has granted bail, where six criminal cases were registered against the accused. In case of Narendra Kumar @ Monu Rana (supra), a coordinate Bench has granted bail on the basis of period of custody and also the fact that 74 prosecution witnesses are listed and none of them has been examined. In case of Sajid Khan Vs. State of Rajasthan, (supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court has granted bail to a person when he was in custody for 15 months.

12. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has also considered the issue relating to the pendency of criminal cases in case of Neeru Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh :AIR 2025 SC 3703 and further placed reliance upon in case of State of Karnataka v. Sri Darshan Etc. : 2025 INSC 979 and has specifically

(5 of 5) [CRLMB-12350/2026] laid down that criminal antecedents and the pendency of criminal cases are relevant considerations while deciding an application for bail. In case of Rajni Vs. State of Punjab reported in 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1050, again considered an issue regarding criminal antecedents and observed that same is a relevant factor.

13. Having considered the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner is a serious threat to the society if he has been released on bail, as he will indulge in crime which is evident from the bail orders passed in other cases as it is the petitioner is continuously indulged in the crime, therefore, looking to the criminal antecedents, the petitioner is not entitled to be released on bail.

14. Considering the gravity of allegations and overall facts and circumstances of the case, it is appropriate to dismiss the bail application of the applicant accused at this stage.

15. Accordingly, the fourth application for bail filed under Section 483 of BNSS preferred by Mukesh Kumar Sharma @ Kada S/o Shri Roop Kishore Sharma is hereby dismissed.

16. The trial court is directed to expedite the trial and try to conclude as early as possible. (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J 178/CHETNA BEHRANI