JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor and perused material made available to me during arguments of case. 2. This bail application has been filed by petitioner Vinod Kumar for his release on bail under Section 439 Cr.PC. He was arrested in F.I.R. No.225/2010 registered at Police Station Karni Vihar, Jaipur, for offence under Sections 380 and 457 of the IPC. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner has argued that learned Additional Sessions Judge No.5, Jaipur City, Jaipur, erred in law in rejecting bail application of petitioner on the ground that he previously had 26 cases of theft registered against him whereas fact is that petitioner was not convicted in any one of them. Learned counsel submitted that petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. Mere antecedents cannot be a sole ground for refusal of benefit of bail pending trial. It is argued that personal liberty of a citizen has to be zealously guarded. The dominant factor should always be nature of the case in which accused is involved. Learned counsel in support of his arguments relied on judgment of Supreme Court in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694 , and argued that Supreme Court in that case held that antecedents of applicant would be seen only if he is previously convicted by a court in cognizable offence. Since petitioner has been acquitted In all 25 cases, he cannot be refused benefit of bail. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application and argued that petitioner may have been acquitted in all the cases on account of extending him benefit of doubt but that cannot be a reason for his release on bail. He does not deserve any indulgence from this Court because he has been in the past found Involved in 26 cases of theft and his release on bail would not be, therefore, conducive to larger interest of the society. 5. I have given my anxious and thoughtful consideration to rival submissions of learned counsel for parties and perused the material on record. 6. This court in Vijay Kumar Meena v. State, 2008 (3) WLC (Raj.) 261 , rejected bail application of accused against whom there were 17 more cases registered mostly of theft. In the facts of that case, in Para 3 of the judgment the court observed as under: "3. 6. This court in Vijay Kumar Meena v. State, 2008 (3) WLC (Raj.) 261 , rejected bail application of accused against whom there were 17 more cases registered mostly of theft. In the facts of that case, in Para 3 of the judgment the court observed as under: "3. Although pendency of a criminal case as such may not always be a bar for grant of bail, but if it is shown that in spite of indulgence repeatedly shown by the Court, an accused has been continuously misusing such liberty and involving himself time and again in similar nd other nature of offences, this may by itself be a reason for refusal of bail. And that can be done if the Court on the basis of material on record is satisfied that the accused has been repeatedly involving himself in so large number of cases and at such regular intervals, that he can be safely treated as a habitual offender. Grant of bail no doubt is an issue which concerns the liberty of a citizen. But at the same time, if an accused Is shown to frequently and habitually indulge himself in commission of crimes one after the other and becomes a menace to the society, that liberty is required to be balanced against the larger Interest of the society. Apart from merits of the case, when it is shown that he has been committing offences with impunity in such a manner that letting him free would again expose the society to the offences that such habitual offender might again commit, the bail application of such an accused can be refused on consideration of his antecedent salone." 7. Above referred judgment of Supreme Court. on which reliance has been placed by learned counsel for petitioner, was rendered in an entirely different context where the issue was whether benefit of anticipatory bail could be curtailed for a particular time period. Even in that case, it was observed by the Supreme Court that society has a vital interest in grant or refusal of bail because every criminal offence is an offence against the State. The order granting or refusing bail must reflect perfect balance between conflicting interests, namely, sanctity of individual liberty and interest of society. Even in that case, it was observed by the Supreme Court that society has a vital interest in grant or refusal of bail because every criminal offence is an offence against the State. The order granting or refusing bail must reflect perfect balance between conflicting interests, namely, sanctity of individual liberty and interest of society. The law of bails dovetails two conflicting interests namely, on the one hand, the requirements of shielding the society from hazards of those committing crimes and potentiality of repeating same crime while on bail and on other hand absolute adherence of fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence regarding presumption of innocence of an accused until he is found guilty and sanctity of individual liberty. 8. Learned counsel has broadly relied on parameters laid down by the Supreme Court in Para 112 in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre's case, supra, which reads, "112. The following factors and parameters can be taken into consideration while dealing with the anticipatory bail: i. The nature and gravity of the accusation and the exact role of the accused must be properly comprehended before arrest is made, ii. The antecedents of the applicant including the fact as to whether the accused has previously undergone imprisonment on conviction by a Court in respect of any cognizable offence, iii. The possibility of the applicant to flee from justice, iv. The possibility of the accused's likelihood to repeat similar or the other offences. v. Where the accusations have been made only with the object of injuring or humiliating the applicant by arresting him or her vi. Impact of grant of anticipatory bail particularly in cases of large magnitude affecting a very large number of people. vii. The courts must evaluate the entire available material against the accused very carefully. The court must also clearly comprehend the exact role of the accused in the case. The cases in which accused is implicated with the help of Sections 34 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code, the court should consider with even greater care and caution because over implication in the cases is a matter of common knowledge and concern, viii. While considering the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail, a balance has to be struck between two factors namely, no prejudice should be caused to the free, fair and full investigation and there should be prevention of harassment, humiliation and unjustified detention of the accused, ix. While considering the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail, a balance has to be struck between two factors namely, no prejudice should be caused to the free, fair and full investigation and there should be prevention of harassment, humiliation and unjustified detention of the accused, ix. The court to consider reasonable apprehension of tampering of the witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant, x. Frivolity in prosecution should always be considered and it is only the element of genuineness that shall have to be considered. In The matter of grant of bail and in the event of there being some doubt as to the genuineness of the prosecution, in the normal course of events, the accused is entitled to an order of bail." 9. A conjoint and comprehensive reading of all the above parameters laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court would show that while considering application for grant of bail of an accused, the nature and gravity of accusation has to be taken into consideration, which observation was made in Para 112 (i) of the judgment in the context of grant of anticipatory bail. As regards antecedents, it was observed by the Supreme Court in Para 112 (ii) that antecedents of the applicant including the fact as to whether accused has previously undergone imprisonment on conviction by a Court in respect of any cognizable offence. If this sub-para is independently analyzed, what was observed by the Supreme Court was that antecedents of applicant has to be seen including the fact whether he has been previously undergone imprisonment on conviction by a court in respect of any cognizable offence. But this cannot be read to mean that even in cases where antecedents of an accused are so grave that he has been repeatedly found indulging himself in offence of similar nature in as many as 26 cases and though he may have been acquitted by extending benefit of doubt, yet while considering the application for grant of bail, can the court ignore such an important factor? Moreover, in sub-para (iv) of Para 112 of the judgment the Supreme Court mentioned yet another factor to be taken into consideration while considering anticipatory bail was about possibility of the accused's likelihood to repeat similar or the other offences. Moreover, in sub-para (iv) of Para 112 of the judgment the Supreme Court mentioned yet another factor to be taken into consideration while considering anticipatory bail was about possibility of the accused's likelihood to repeat similar or the other offences. Though this and other observations were made in the context of grant of anticipatory bail but all those weighty observations are equally relevant for grant of bail pending trial under Section 439 Cr.PC., especially those in sub-paras (ii) and (iv) of Para 112 of the judgment. 10. In view of aforesaid, it cannot be said that despite repeated indulgence of accused in similar offences one after the other and his involvement in large number of cases on regular intervals habitually, the offender should necessarily be granted bail just because he has applied for gra of bail. 11. In view of above, the bail application is rejected, however the trial 96urt is directed to expedite the trial.Bail Application Rejected. *******