JUDGMENT Anjuli Palo, J. - This is the first appeal filed by the appellant under Section 14(A)(2) of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 2. The appellant is in custody since 07.01.2020 in connection with Crime No.09/2020 registered at Police Station Bhalumada, District Anuppur (M.P.) for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468 & 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code, Sections 66C and 66D of Information Technology Act and Section 3(2)(5) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 3. As per the prosecution story, the appellant cheated the complainant namely Ramlal Ahirwar while receiving his adhar card and mobile number to provide cooking gas under Ujjawala Scheme, but nothing has been provided to the complainant by the Government and an amount about Rs. 3,352/- has been deducted from his account and transferred to some other account. Hence, the police has registered the offences against the appellant. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is innocent person and he has been falsely implicated in this case. The police has failed to prove that the amount withdrawn from the account of the complainant has been credited in the account of the present appellant. 5. Learned Panel Lawyer for the State has strongly opposed the contentions raised by learned counsel for the appellant by submitting that there are so many criminal cases of similar nature registered against the appellant since long. He is a habitual offender to cheat persons in similar way. He has also committed other heinous offence , hence, the present appellant is not entitled to enlarge on bail. 6. The trial Court has dismissed the application of the appellant for grant of bail on the basis of nature of offence. 7. After considering the rival contentions of both the parties, this Court come to the conclusion that there are sufficient evidence against the present appellant to connect him with the crime. He was also involved previously in similar kind of offence and about 19 criminal cases have been registered against him. Looking to the criminal past of the appellant and nature of offence, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the appellant. Accordingly, the appeal is hereby dismissed.