JUDGMENT 1. - This bail application has been filed under Section 25 4 39 Cr.P.C. 2. Brief facts of the case as under:- "Jr. Engineer, JVVNL lodged a report at Police Station, Govindgarh under Section 136 of Indian Electricity Act. On the basis of said report, the investigation was commenced and during the course of investigation, the petitioner was arrested. He moved the bail application before the court below, but the same was dismissed. Hence, this bail application has been filed by the petitioner." 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that accused petitioners is in judicial lock up since 3rd July, 2014. He has drawn the attention of this Court on the judgment delivered by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Shri Thukchuk Lachungpa v. State of Sikkim reported in 2001(3) RLW 375(SC) and contended that on the basis of the aforesaid judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court, the petitioner should be released on bail. He has further drawn the attention of this Court on the order dated 29.9.2015 passed by the Coordinate bench of this Court in S.B. Cr. Misc. Bail Application No. 10281/2015, whereby the same accused Shankar has been released on bail in another FIR No. 137/0214 registered at Police Station, Govindgarh. He has further contended that petitioner is innocent, he has been falsely implicated in this matter and conclusion of trial will take time, and in this view of the matter, this bail application deserves to be allowed and the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail. 4. Learned Special PP for JVVNL has opposed the same. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the relevant material on record including the impugned order dated 10.7.2015, wherein it has been mentioned that 20 cases are pending against the petitioner for the offence under Section 136 of Electricity Act. He is a habitual offender, who has stolen transformer, copper wire and other electric articles. If he is released on bail, then he will again commit such type of offence in future. 6. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ram Pratap Yadav v. Mitra Sen Yadav and Another (Cr. He is a habitual offender, who has stolen transformer, copper wire and other electric articles. If he is released on bail, then he will again commit such type of offence in future. 6. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ram Pratap Yadav v. Mitra Sen Yadav and Another (Cr. Appeal No. 1209 of 2002; decided on 20.11.2002) , having taken into consideration the fact that there was a long list of 19 cases pending against the accused person allowed the appeal filed by the complainant and set-aside the order of the High Court granting bail to the accused respondent No. 1. Hon'ble Court in the aforesaid case, held as under: "Be that as it may, it cannot be denied that previous conviction of an accused for a heinous offence punishable with imprisonment for life, his involvement in other crimes and the quantum of punishment for the offences in which the applicant is seeking bail are all relevant factors to which the court should consciously advert to while taking a decision in the matter of enlargement on bail." 7. Likewise in the case of Prahlad Singh Bhati v. NCT Delhi and Another reported in (2001) 4 SCC 280 , Hon'ble Apex Court held thus: "The jurisdiction to grant bail has to be exercised on the basis of well-settled principles having regard to the circumstances of each case and not in an arbitrary manner. While granting on bail, the court has to keep in mind the nature of accusations, the nature of evidence in support thereof, the severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the character, behaviour, means and standing of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with, the larger interests of the public or State and similar other considerations. It has also to be kept in mind that for the purposes of granting the bail the legislature has used the words "reasonable grounds for believing", instead of "the evidence" which means the court dealing with the grant of bail can only satisfy it as to whether there is genuine case against the accused and that the prosecution will be able to produce prima facie evidence in support of the charge. It is not expected, at this stage, to have the evidence establishing the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt." 8. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case as also the long list of 20 cases pending against the petitioner, I do not think it just and proper to accept the bail application of the petitioner and hence, the bail application filed by the petitioner is hereby dismissed. *******