1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH JAIPUR ORDER S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 6177/2009 Mangat Ram vs. State of Rajasthan Dated : 11.08.2009 HON'BLE MR. MAHESH BHAGWATI,J. Mr. B.K. Dixit, for the petitioner. Mr. G.S. Fauzdar, Public Prosecutor for the State. This order governs the disposal of bail application filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. by Mr. B.K. Dixit Advocate on behalf of the applicant Mangat Ram pertaining to criminal case No. 110/2005 titled as State vs. Rajesh @ Raju & ors. pending before the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nawalgarh, District Jhunjhunu in the offences under Sections 19/54 of Rajasthan Excise Act. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and perused the relevant material available on record. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has canvassed that the vehicle in question (Jeep No. HR 24-C-7375) involved in the instant case earlier belonged to the petitioner but now the fact is that it had been sold long back to Raj Kumar S/o. Pyare lal against sale consideration, the full and final payment of which he had received from the purchaser. He has been made an accused on the ground that the registration certificate still continues in his name. The police has wrongly filed challan against him, as such, he may be granted indulgence of anticipatory bail. 2 4. Learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State has opposed the bail petition on the ground that the petitioner is a registered owner of the vehicle wherein a huge quantity of illicit liquor was being transported. The police after completion of investigation has filed the challan against him under Section 299 of Cr.P.C. as he has been absconding. 5. Having considered the submissions made at the bar and carefully perused the relevant material available on record, it is noticed that the petitioner is an accused in the instant case and challan has been filed against him after completion of investigation, as such, the petition filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. is not found to be maintainable. Apart this, the accusations as levelled against the petitioner do not seem to be false, groundless and baseless. It is not a fit case wherein, the petitioner can be granted indulgence of anticipatory bail. The provisions of Section 438 of Cr.P.C. are sparingly used in rarest of rare circumstances. 6. In Pankaj vs. State of Raj., RLW 1996 (1) Raj., 628 this court has categorically observed that the provisions of Section 438 are attracted only when it is found that the accusation or allegations levelled against the petitioner are found to be totally false, baseless and groundless. It is for the accused to set out that no prima facie case is made out against him. From the facts on record, it is not reflected that the accusation against the petitioner are totally false and baseless. Hence, in the instant case, the petitioner is not entitled to get the anticipatory bail. 3 7. In the result, the bail petition filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. on behalf of the petitioner Mangat Ram stands dismissed. (MAHESH BHAGWATI), J. Mak/- s-48