S.B.CR. MISC. BAIL APPLICATION NO.530/2009 SHANTI VS. STATE OF RAJ. Dated 02.02.2009 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH BHAGWATI Mr. Omprakash Jain for the petitioner. Mr. MF Beig, Public Prosecutor for the State. This order governs the disposal of bail application filed by Shri Omprakash Jain, Advocate on behalf of the applicant Shanti pertaining to F.I.R. No.106/2008 of Police Station Banetha, District Tonk, in the offences under Sections 143, 323, 341, 504 and 379 of IPC. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Public Prosecutor for the State and perused the material on record. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the three co-accused persons of this case have already been enlarged on anticipatory bail by this Court. The injuries sustained by the injured persons Tulsi Ram and others are of trivial nature. Both the parties scuffled with each other. Hence, under these circumstances, the petitioner Shanti being lady, also may be enlarged on anticipatory bail. The learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail petition primarily on the ground that the accused is alleged to have been found in the offence under Section 308 of IPC and the injured Tulsi is found to have sustained three grievous injuries on his person. Hence, the bail petition may be dismissed. Having pondered over the submissions made at the bar and scanned the relevant material available on record, it is noticed that the injured Tulsi sustained three injuries which are of grievous nature and apart them, he sustained four more injuries. She is found to have been involved in the offence under Section 308 of IPC. It has been categorically stated in the case of Pankaj Vs. State of Raj. (RLW 1996(1) Raj., 628) that the provision of Section 438 Cr.P.C., seeking Pre arrest bail sparingly used in rarest of the rare cases. Allegation of false implication and malafides must be made and proved by the accused. This provision can be invoked by the Court only when the accusation levelled against the petitioner is found to be totally false, baseless and groundless. Hence, under these circumstances, it is not a fit case where the petitioner Shanti be enlarged on anticipatory bail. In the result, the bail petition filed on behalf of the accused petitioner Shanti W/o Bhanwar Lal under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. stands dismissed. (MAHESH BHAGWATI)J. PCG