Mohammad Rafiq, J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor and perused material made available to me during arguments of case.
(2.) This bail application has been filed by petitioner Vinod Kumar for his release on bail under Section 439 Cr.PC. He was arrested in F.I.R. No.225/2010 registered at Police Station Karni Vihar, Jaipur, for offence under Sections 380 and 457 of the IPC.
(3.) Learned counsel for petitioner has argued that learned Additional Sessions Judge No.5, Jaipur City, Jaipur, erred in law in rejecting bail application of petitioner on the ground that he previously had 26 cases of theft registered against him whereas fact is that petitioner was not convicted in any one of them. Learned counsel submitted that petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. Mere antecedents cannot be a sole ground for refusal of benefit of bail pending trial. It is argued that personal liberty of a citizen has to be zealously guarded. The dominant factor should always be nature of the case in which accused is involved. Learned counsel in support of his arguments relied on judgment of Supreme Court in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694 , and argued that Supreme Court in that case held that antecedents of applicant would be seen only if he is previously convicted by a court in cognizable offence. Since petitioner has been acquitted In all 25 cases, he cannot be refused benefit of bail.;