1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH JAIPUR ORDER S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 6685/2009 Prem Shankar & ors. vs. State of Rajasthan Dated : 31.08.2009 HON'BLE MR. MAHESH BHAGWATI,J. Mr. Dileep Singh Jadaun , for the petitioner. Mr. Amit Punia, Public Prosecutor for the State. This order governs the disposal of bail application filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. by Mr. Dileep Singh Jadaun Advocate on behalf of the applicants pertaining to F.I.R. No. 357/2009 of police station Sadar District Bundi, in the offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 341, 452 and 307 of IPC. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners seeks permission of the Court to withdraw the petition filed on behalf of the petitioner Suresh @ Surajmal S/o. Babulal. 3. Permission is granted. 4. Hence, the bail application filed on behalf of the petitioner Suresh @ Surajmal S/o. Babulal under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. is dismissed as withdrawn. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as also learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and perused the relevant material available on record. 6. So far as other petitioners are concerned, learned counsel has canvassed that they are being falsely implicated and are in no way connected with the commission of the alleged offences of the instant case. They are innocent. Hence, they may be granted indulgence of anticipatory bail. 2 4. Learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State has opposed the bail petition. 5. Having considered the submissions made at the bar and carefully perused the relevant material available on record, it is noticed that the petitioners are alleged to have caused injuries on the fronto parietal region of both Smt. Manphoola and Suraj Mal by the sharp edged weapon, as a result of which Manphoola is found to have sustained one incised wound on the parietal region and Suraj Mal is found to have sustained two incised wounds, one on the right parietal bone and second in right side of frontal bone. The accusations as levelled against the petitioners do not seem to be false, groundless and baseless. It is not a fit case wherein, the petitioners 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 petitioners are not entitled to get the anticipatory bail. 7. In the result, the bail petition filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. on behalf of the petitioners namely Prem Shankar, Durga lal and Ghasi lal stands dismissed. (MAHESH BHAGWATI), J. Mak/- s-38