1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH JAIPUR ORDER S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 6961/2009 Ghanshyam vs. State of Rajasthan Dated : 16.09.2009 HON'BLE MR. MAHESH BHAGWATI,J. Mr. Sanjay Mehrishi, 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. Sanjay Mehrishi Advocate on behalf of the applicant Ghanshyam pertaining to F.I.R. No. 133/2008 of police station Bhawani Mandi, District Kota, in the offences under Sections 420 of IPC and Sections 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and perused the relevant material available on record. 3. The petitioner is alleged to have supplied impure Desi Ghee to Ravi Enterprises projecting the same to be pure Desi Ghee. Learned counsel for the petitioner has canvassed that he is being falsely implicated whereas, he is in no way connected with the commission of offence of the instant case. Neither he supplied any Ghee nor he received the tins of Ghee. The police, after completion of investigation, filed the Final Report unoccurred in the court. Thereafter, at the instance of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhawani Mandi, the case is being re-investigated. The petitioner is an innocent person, hence, he may be granted indulgence of anticipatory bail. 2 4. Learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State has opposed the bail petition on the ground that the petitioner is found to have supplied impure Desi Ghee, projecting it to be the pure Desi Ghee to Ravi Enterprises. There is ample evidence against the petitioner on record collected by the Investigating Officer of this case. The sample of the Ghee was also sent to Public Health Laboratory, Kota, where, the sample was found to be impure Desi Ghee. 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 Ghanshyam stands dismissed. (MAHESH BHAGWATI), J. Mak/- s-39