1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH JAIPUR ORDER S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 5921/2009 Heera lal vs. State of Rajasthan Dated : 01.09.2009 HON'BLE MR. MAHESH BHAGWATI,J. Mr. Rajesh Goswami, for the petitioner. Mr. Amit Punia, Public Prosecutor for the State. Mr. Pankaj Gupta, for the complainant. This order governs the disposal of bail application filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. by Mr. Rajesh Goswami Advocate on behalf of the applicant Heera lal pertaining to F.I.R. No. 63/2009 of police station Mahila Thana, Jaipur (East), in the offences under Sections 498-A, 406 and 494 of IPC. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the complainant as also learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and perused the relevant material available on record. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has canvassed that he has been falsely implicated in this case. A bare perusal of the facts of First Information Report does not constitute any offence under Section 498-A and 406 of IPC. There is no evidence with regard to subjecting the complainant to cruelty. Hence, he may be granted indulgence of anticipatory bail. 4. Learned counsel for the complainant as also learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State have opposed the bail petition on the ground that both the complainant and the petitioner married in the year 1982. It is true that both the complainant and the petitioner at the time of marriage were of the age of about 5-6 years. The complainant was going to petitioner's 2 house and out of their wedlock, the complainant gave birth to a child who soon after the birth, died. The petitioner has deserted the first wife and has re-married out of which, he has got two children. The petitioner could not contact second marriage as per the provisions of law, during the life of first wife living, hence, the bail petition may be dismissed. 5. Having considered the submissions made at the bar and carefully perused the relevant material available on record, it is noticed that the accusations as levelled against the petitioners with regard to cruelty, 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. 7. In the result, the bail petition filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. on behalf of the petitioner stands dismissed. (MAHESH BHAGWATI), J. Mak/- 24