JUDGMENT : Mr. Mahesh Chandra Sharma, J. This fourth bail application has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. with the following prayer: "It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that his bail application may kindly be accepted and accused-petitioner may kindly be ordered to be enlarged on bail in terms of Section 439 Cr.P.C. during trial of this case. Accused petition shall be highly obliged forever, for this act of kindness. And it shall also be deemed that a chance is given to reform." 2. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant filed a complaint before the Chief Judl. Magistrate, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur and same was sent for investigation under Section 156(3), and on the basis of aforesaid complaint, the police registered FIR being No. 80/2013 at P.S. Vidhayakpuri, Jaipur (South) on 1.4.2013 for the offences mentioned therein alleging that the petitioner and others have cheated the money for approximately Rs. 50.0 lacs for giving gold by way of digging. After lodging an FIR, the investigation started and during the period of investigation, police arrested the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner moved bail application before the court of Addl. 50.0 lacs for giving gold by way of digging. After lodging an FIR, the investigation started and during the period of investigation, police arrested the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner moved bail application before the court of Addl. Sessions Judge No.3, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur but same was dismissed vide order dated 15.5.2013, operative portion of which is reproduced as under: dsl Mk;jh ds voyksdu ls izdV gksrk gS fd ifjoknhx.k jktohjflag] lkgcflag] jkes'oj yky] lqjsUnzflag }kjk fopkj.k U;k;ky; esa izLrqr fd;s x;s ifjokn ds vk/kkj ij ;g izdj.k iqfyl Fkkuk fo/kk;diqjh esa /kkjk 420] 384] 385] 386] 387] 388] 323] 341] 120ch Hkk0na0la0 esa ntZ fd;k tkdj vuqla/kku fd;k tk jgk gSA pwafd vkosnu i= dh lquokbZ ds nkSjku ifjoknh lkgcflag o lqjsUnzflag us 'kiFki= izLrqr dj tkfgj fd;k gS fd mUgksaus 'kadj eh.kk o liuk eh.kk dks tehu dz; djus ds O;olk; gsrq nl yk[k o iUnzg yk[k :i;s fn;s FksA vfHk;qDr izkFkhZ dh vksj ls vU; nLrkost Hkh izLrqr fd;s x;s gSa] ftudk voyksdu fd;k x;kA ;g mYys[kuh; gS fd ifjoknh lkgcflag o lqjsUnzflag }kjk izLrqr fd;s x;s 'kiFki=ksa ij vuqla/kku fd;k tkuk 'ks"k gSA Fkkukf/kdkjh fo/kk;diqjh us vfHk;qDr izkFkhZ ds fo:) ntZ izdj.kksa dh lwph izLrqr dh gS ftlds vuqlkj fofHkUu iqfyl Fkkuksa esa vfHk;qDr izkFkhZ ds fo:) dqy 13 izdj.k ntZ fd;s x;s gSa ftuesa ls vf/kdka'k izdj.k U;k;ky; esa yafcr gSaA bl izdkj vkjksi dh izd`fr] vfHk;qDr izkFkhZ ds fo:) ntZ izdj.kksa ,oa izdj.k ds vuqla/kkujr gksus ds dkj.k vfHk;qDr izkFkhZ dks tekur ij fjgk fd;k tkuk mfpr ugha gSA izkFkhZ vfHk;qDr dk tekur vkosnu i= [kkfjt fd;s tkus ;ksX; gSA 3. Against the said order dated 15.5.2013, the petitioner preferred the first bail application before this court, and same was dismissed vide order dated 16.8.2013 with liberty to file fresh bail application before the trial court after filing of the challan. 4. After filing of challan, the petitioner moved fresh bail application before the trial court, that too was dismissed vide order dated 12.9.2013. Against that order, the petitioner moved second bail application before this court, and same was dismissed vide order dated 28.10.2014 with liberty to file fresh bail application before the trial court after recording the statement of material witnesses. 5. Later on, after recording the statements of four witnesses, the petitioner moved third bail application before the trial court, but same was also dismissed vide order dated 3.9.2015. 5. Later on, after recording the statements of four witnesses, the petitioner moved third bail application before the trial court, but same was also dismissed vide order dated 3.9.2015. Against that very order, the petitioner again moved third bail application before this court, but same was also dismissed vide order dated 1.12.2015 with the direction to the trial court to conclude the trial as early as possible, and, if possible, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this (its) order. 6. Hence this fourth bail application has been filed. 7. Mr. Puran Chander Sen, learned counsel for the petitioner has emphatically argued that bail applications of the petitioner have been dismissed by the courts below in violation of Section 437 (6) Cr.RC., which is reproduced as under: 8. "437. When bail may be taken in case of non-bailable offence : - (6) If in any case triable by a Magistrate, the trial of a person accused of any non-bailable offence is not concluded within a period of sixty days from the first date fixed for taking evidence in the case, such person shall, if he is in custody during the whole of the said period, be released on bail to the satisfaction of the Magistrate, unless for reasons to be recorded in writing, the Magistrate otherwise directs." 9. It has been argued that, on the basis of aforesaid Section 437(6) Cr.RC., the accused petitioner should be released on bail. It has also been contended that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case, he has nothing to do with the alleged crime, he is in judicial custody since long, trial of the case is likely to take time, hence he should be released on bail. It has further been contended that co-accused persons have been released on bail, and case of the petitioner is on better footing. It is submitted that although 21 cases are pending against him, even then he cannot be treated as convicted; in fact he should be treated as innocent person as the alleged offences are triable by 1st Class Judl. Magistrate, and one opportunity should have been awarded to him for reformation, hence the accused petitioner should be enlarged on bail. 10. It is submitted that although 21 cases are pending against him, even then he cannot be treated as convicted; in fact he should be treated as innocent person as the alleged offences are triable by 1st Class Judl. Magistrate, and one opportunity should have been awarded to him for reformation, hence the accused petitioner should be enlarged on bail. 10. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the bail application and contended that since 21 cases are pending against the petitioner, he is an habitual offender, thrice his bail applications have been dismissed by the courts below as also this court, hence he should not be released on bail. He has also pointed out that while dismissing the bail application by this court, 10-12 Investigating Officers were called from different police stations regarding antecedents of the accused petitioner, and all have specifically stated that petitioner is habitual offender. 11. So far as Section 437(6) Cr.RC., as quoted herein above, is concerned, he has also pointed out the attention of this court towards the Judgment reported in AIR 2005 (SC), 1483-Sompal v. Sunit Rathi wherein it has been held that at the time of deciding the bail application, criminal record of the accused should have been considered. He has also brought to the notice of this court the judgment rendered in Jitendra @ Jitu v. State (SB Cr.Wr.Pet. No. 274/2011) wherein also said Section 437(6) has been defined in the manner that it is not mandatory but it a discretion of the court, and since the accused petitioner is habitual, therefore, looking to the aforesaid facts & circumstances of the case, he should not be released on bail. 12. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, gone through the judgments, cited above, and also perused the material available on record, and without expressing any opinion on merits and demerits of the case, I do not think it just and proper to enlarge the petitioner on bail. 13. Accordingly, in view of above facts specially that 21 cases are pending against the petitioner, he is habitual offender, there is no change of circumstance, this fourth bail application is hereby dismissed. 14. However, it is expected of the trial court to conclude the trial as early as possible, as ordered on 1.12.2015 by this court.