Hon'ble SHARMA, J. - (1.) THIS is a fifth bail application by the accused petitioner under Section 439 Cr.P.C. The first bail application No. 1359 of 2009 filed by the accused petitioner was rejected by this Court on March 9, 2009. In the order dated March 9, 2009 this Court observed as under: "5. Having reflected over the submissions made at the bar and carefully scanned the relevant material available on record including the bail order dated 15.11.2008 rendered by Special Judge Dacoity Affected Area, Dholpur, it is noticed that the investigation was kept pending under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. against the petitioner as he was absconding. It is also noticed that the petitioner was facing investigation and trial in more than one criminal cases pending against him. Hence, I, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case but keeping in view the severity of the offence, do not feel inclined to grant indulgence of bail to the petitioner and the bail petition deserves to be dismissed."
(2.) THE second bail application No. 203/2009 filed by the accused petitioner was rejected by this court on 1.5.2009 as no one was present for the petitioner on that day. THE petitioner filed third Bail Application N. 3894 of 2009 and this Court rejected this bail application on 22.5.2009 observing as under: "4. Having considered the submissions made at the bar and carefully scanned the relevant material on record, I, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, do not find any good ground to change my earlier view and his third bail petition also deserves to be dismissed for the reasons as enumerated in the bail order dated 9th March, 2009 rendered by this Court." Fourth Bail application No. 8164 of 2009 filed by the accused petitioner was listed before this Court on 24.10.2009 and the learned counsel for the accused petitioner withdraws the bail application and it was dismissed as withdrawn and liberty was given to conclude the trial within a period of one month, if possible, from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order. After rejection of bail by this Court, the accused petitioner moved bail application before the Special Judge (Dacoity Affected Area) Dholpur and the trial Court rejected his bail application vide order dated 16/12/2009 by a detailed order. Hence this fifth bail application has been moved under section 439 Cr.P.C. by the accused petitioner. The trial Court rejected the bail application of the accused petitioner on the ground that the bail has been refused by the High Court. The learned counsel stated that this Court granted 30 days time for concluding the trial but the trial could not be completed within the period observed by this Court. The learned counsel argued that the petitioner is absolutely innocent and he has not committed any such offence as alleged by the prosecution and only on the basis of information furnished by the police, the petitioner has been made accused in this case. The previous bail applications were rejected only on the ground of pending cases but the learned counsel argued that pendency of other criminal cases cannot be the sole basis of refusing the bail and the part/role assigned to the accused in the case before the court may be looked into and considering the period of custody since 5/4/2008 and the fact that nothing has been recovered from him he be released on bail. The learned counsel for the petitioner cited case of Sitaram vs. State of Rajasthan (RLR 1993 (1) 335) in order to argue that parity must be maintained if the cases are identical or the matter arises out of the same fact. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application of the accused petitioner. The Public Prosecutor stated that PW.7 Suresh Chand and PW 8 Hakim Singh taken the name of the accused petitioner Ramniwas in their statements, who committed the offence and ran away. The case cited in the instant matter is not applicable in bail matters. The bail matters are decided on the basis of own facts. Without commenting on the merits of the case, 1 do not incline to grant fifth bail application to the accused petitioner. The fifth bail application stands rejected. However, I expect that the trial Court may conclude the trial as early as possible.;