1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH JAIPUR ORDER S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 5044/2009 Narendra Kumar Soni & ors. vs. State of Rajasthan Dated : 17.08.2009 HON'BLE MR. MAHESH BHAGWATI,J. Mr. Naseem Uddin Qazi, for the petitioners. 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. Naseem Uddin Qazi Advocate on behalf of the applicants pertaining to F.I.R. No. 189/2009 of police station Udhyog Nagar, Kota in the offences under Sections 143, 447, 323 and 307 IPC. 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 they are being falsely implicated in this case and are in no way connected with the commission of the offences of the instant case. They are innocent, as such, they may granted indulgence of anticipatory bail. 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 accusations as levelled against the petitioners 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 2 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 stands dismissed. (MAHESH BHAGWATI), J. Mak/- 30