IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH JAIPUR ORDER S.B. Cr. Misc. Bail Application No.556/2010 Ansar Khan Vs. State of Raj. Dated : 26.04.2010 HON'BLE MR. MAHESH BHAGWATI, J. Mr. Mahesh Gupta, 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. Mahesh Gupta, Advocate on behalf of the applicant Ansar Khan in FIR No. 289/2009 of police station Shyam Nagar, Jaipur city (south) in the offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of IPC. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Public Prosecutor for the State and perused the material on record. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has canvassed that the co-accused persons namely Jai Singh, Mohd. Rafiq and Ramji Lal have been released on bail. Nothing is required to be recovered from the possession of the petitioner Ansar Khan, hence, he may be granted indulgence of anticipatory bail. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State has opposed the bail petition on the ground that the petitioner identified the signatures of -2- the complainant Banno Begam, whereas at the time of executing the power of attorney, agreement, sale-deed and will, the complainant Banno Begam was not at all present there. The appellant is an accused under the provisions of Section 120-B of IPC. He is alleged to have hatched a conspiracy along with the other co-accused persons, hence, involvement of the petitioner is similar to that of the other co-accused persons, as such he does not deserve to be granted pre-arrest bail. 4. Having considered the submissions made at the bar and carefully perused the relevant material available on record, it is noticed that the accusation levelled against the petitioner Ansar Khar does not seem to be false, groundless or baseless. 5. 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 -3- instant case, the petitioner is not entitled to get the anticipatory bail. 6. In the result, the bail petition filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. on behalf of the accused-petitioner Ansar Khan S/o Shri Abdul Gaffar Khan stands dismissed. (MAHESH BHAGWATI)J. pcg