JUDGMENT 1. - This IInd bail application has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. 2. Brief facts of the case are as under: "FIR No. 178/2014 was lodged at Police Station, Shastri Nagar, Jaipur for the offences under Section 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC. Thereafter, the investigation was commenced. During the course of investigation, the petitioner was arrested. He moved the bail application before the Court below, but the same was dismissed vide order dated 12.8.2014 with the following observations: " izkFkhZ vfHk;qDr ij ;g vkjksi gS fd mlus ifjoknh dh nqdku dhk eSllZ vkyksfj;k iuhj m|ksx ( izks0 ns'kjkt vkyksfj;k ) ,10th0 15 lqHkk"k uxj 'kkfiax lsaVj] 'kkL=h uxj] t;iqj ds uke ls QthZ 'kki ,DV dk ykbZlsUl cukdj mDr nLrkost dh dwVjpuk dh gS tcfd mDr nqdku ifjoknh gS] ftl ij eSllZ 'kekZ ikuh ds uke ls fiNys o"kksZ ls viuk O;olk; dj jgk gSA vfHk;qDr ds fo:) /kkjk 420] 467] 468] 471 Hkk0na0la0 dk xaHkhj vkjksi gSA vr% ekeys ds mijksDr leLr rF;ksa o ifjfLFkfr;ksa dks n`f"Vxr j[krs gq, izdj.k ds xq.kkoxq.k ij dksbZ fVIi.kh fd;s fcuk eSa bl Lrj ij izkFkhZ vfHk;qDr dks tekur ij fjgk fd;k tkuk U;k;ksfpr ugha ikrk gwaA " 3. Thereafter he moved the bail application no. 9017/2014 before this Court, but the same was also dismissed vide order dated 27.8.2014 giving liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh ball application before the trial court after submitting the challan by the police. Thereafter he moved the bail application no. 9017/2014 before this Court, but the same was also dismissed vide order dated 27.8.2014 giving liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh ball application before the trial court after submitting the challan by the police. Thereafter the petitioner moved a fresh ball application before the Court below, but the same has been dismissed vide order dated 7.11.2014 with the following observations: " 04- esjs }kjk mHk; i{kdkjku dh cgl lquh xbZA cgl ij lexzrkiwoZd euu fd;k x;kA i=koyh dk voyksdu fd;k x;kA vfHk;qDr ij ;g vkjksi gS fd mlus ifjoknh dh nqdku dk eSllZ vkyksfj;k iuhj m|ksx ( izks0 ns'kjkt vkyksfj;k ) ,10th0 15 lqHkk"k uxj 'kkfiax lsUVj] 'kkL=h uxj] t;qij ds uke ls QthZ 'kki ,DV dk ykbZlsUl cukdj mDr nLrkost dh dwVjpuk dh gS rFkk mldk mi;ksx cSad ls _.k ysus o vU; dk;kZsa esa fd;k gSA tcfd mDr nqdku dk ekfyd ifjoknh gS] ftl ij ifjoknh eSelZ 'kekZ iuh ds uke ls fiNys dbZ o"kksZa ls viuk dkjksckj dj jgk gSA vfHk;qDr ds fo:) /kkjk 420] 467] 468] 471 Hkk0na0la0 dk xaHkhj izd`fr dk vkjksi gSA vr% ekeys ds mijksDr leLr rF;ksa o ifjfLFkfr;ksa dks n`f"Vxr j[krs gq, izdj.k xq.kkoxq.k ij dksbZ fVIi.kh fd;s fcuk eSa bl Lrj ij vfHk;qDr dks tekur ij fjgk fd;k tkuk U;k;ksfpr ugha ikrk gWwaA " 4. Hence, this IInd ball application has been filed before this Court. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the alleged offence is triable by Judicial Magistrate, First Class, He has further contended that after completion of Investigation, the police has filed the challan In this matter and thereafter he moved the ball application before the court below, but the same has been dismissed, He has further contended that complainant of this case is also a habitual offender. The petitioner is in Judicial lock up since and conclusion of trial will take time, hence he should be released on ball. 6. We had called the IO, who is present In person today In the Court along-with the case diary, He has contended that 12 eases were pending against the petitioner, The petitioner is a habitual offender and he has committed the offence punishable with life imprisonment. 7. In answer to the aforesaid submission of the IO, Mr. 6. We had called the IO, who is present In person today In the Court along-with the case diary, He has contended that 12 eases were pending against the petitioner, The petitioner is a habitual offender and he has committed the offence punishable with life imprisonment. 7. In answer to the aforesaid submission of the IO, Mr. Anurag Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that 4 +1 eases are pending against the petitioner and complainant is also a habitual offender and police is not taking any action against the complainant of this ease, 8. Learned PP assisted by learned counsel for the complainant have opposed the aforesaid submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner and contended that accused petitioner is a habitual offender, From the very beginning, he had mens-ria to commit the offence, hence such type of accused person should not be released on ball, 9. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not think It proper to accept this IInd ball application of the petitioner and the same is hereby dismissed with the following directions: (I) The petitioner is free to move a fresh ball application before the trial court after recording the statement of the material witnesses, (II) The trial court is directed to record the statement of the material witnesses within a period of 2 months from the date of framing of the charge, If charge is framed against the petitioner, (III) The Investigating Officer, who is present In person today, is also directed to take necessary steps according to the procedure of law against the complainant of this case, against whom 7 cases are said to be pending. 10. Pursuant thereto, the Investigating Officer undertakes that he will take action against the complainant of this case, positively, in accordance with law.Application disposed of. *******