1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH JAIPUR ORDER S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 6169/2009 Virendra Singh vs. State of Rajasthan Dated : 19.08.2009 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH BHAGWATI Mr. R.K. Mathur, for the petitioner. Mr. Anil Jain, for the complainant. 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. R.K. Mathur Advocate on behalf of the applicant Virendra Singh pertaining to F.I.R. No. 368/2007 of police station Behror, Alwar in the offences under Sections 323 and 365 of IPC. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the complainant 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 he is being falsely implicated and the complainant himself is a history-sheeter and on account of previous animosity with a view to wreak vengeance, the complainant has lodged a false report against him. The petitioner is a Government employee. On the relevant date of occurrence, he was admitted in Government Hospital, in support of which, he files the relevant documents issued by the concerned Doctor of Government Bhagwan Das Morijawala Hospital, Kotputali. The petitioner is innocent person, as such, he may be granted indulgence of anticipatory bail. 4. Learned counsel for the complainant as also learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the 2 State have vociferously opposed the bail petition on the ground that albeit, the petitioner visited a Doctor and he prepared an in-door patient ticket but as per the treating Doctor, it was not certain as to whether the petitioner stayed in the hospital during night hours for treatment or not. Hence, the petitioner may be denied anticipatory bail. 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 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. 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/- 13