1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH JAIPUR ORDER S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 6175/2009 Roshan Singh vs. State of Rajasthan Dated : 19.08.2009 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH BHAGWATI Mr. Yunus Khan, 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. Yunus Khan Advocate on behalf of the applicant Roshan Singh pertaining to F.I.R. No. 298/2009 of police station Bandikui, Dausa in the offences under Sections 143, 148, 149, 341, 323, 336 and 448 of 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 the petitioner is 60 years old and has been suffering with the disease of Melignacy. He has been getting treatment from S.M.S. Hospital, Jaipur. He is getting therapy from time to time. The complainant has falsely implicated him. Neither he is in a position to assault upon anyone nor his physical state permits him to do so. He is innocent person, as such, he is entitled to crave indulgence of anticipatory bail. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State has opposed the bail petition on the ground that there is specific allegation against the petitioner that he was armed with barchhi and assaulted upon injured Jitendra Singh. The 2 medical examination report of injured Jitendra Singh reveals that he sustained injuries on his oscipetal region, clevical bone, shoulder, wrist and other parts of the body. The petitioner along with other co-accused persons attacked upon the complainant party and caused injuries to injured persons, hence, his 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 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/- 47