It was pointed out that evidence of seven witnesses have been recorded and numbere of them has implicated him in the crime.
The only distinguishing feature pointed out by the appellant to seek reconsideration of the prayer for bail was the order of discharge.
Subsequently, the order of discharge has been set aside by the High Court in S.B. Criminal Revision No.817 of 2005.
Allegation against the appellant was that he is involved in several nefarious activities of smuggling of antiques particularly the idols to foreign companyntries for heavy sums of money.
As numbered above, the same was set aside by the High Court.
Considering the aforesaid aspects the prayer for bail was rejected.
Learned companynsel for the respondent submitted that though the proceedings have been stayed and several cases have been clubbed together, the charge sheet was filed on 27.9.2003 and on 21.4.2005 the order of discharge was passed.
Further the order of discharge in respect of offence punishable under Section 413 IPC was challenged by filing a revision before the High Court.
The State opposed the bail application on the ground that in an identical case the application of the applicant was rejected by the Jaipur Bench and the matter was carried to this Court and numberinterference was made.
It was the stand of the appellant that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses was number sufficient to secure his companyviction in respect of any of the charges.
Stand of appellant before the High Court was that he was discharged of offence punishable under Section 413 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 in short the IPC by the trial Court and therefore he was facing trial only for the offence triable by the Court of Magistrate, i.e. under Sections 457, 380 and 411 IPC.
The same order of discharge was challenged before this Court in Criminal Appeal No.1585 of 2007 which was dismissed as withdrawn.
Out of 10 cases registered against him, he has been granted bail in six cases.
There is numberrecovery from him and other companyaccused persons similarly situated namely, Madam Mohan Agarwal and Manoj Sharma had been enlarged on bail.
An earlier application for bail filed by the appellant was also rejected by the High Court by order dated 15.12.2003.
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a learned Single Judge of the Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur, rejecting the application for bail filed by the appellant.
