1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH JAIPUR ORDER S.B. Criminal Misc. 2nd Bail Application No. 6629/2009 Smt. Kamlesh vs. State of Rajasthan Dated : 04.09.2009 HON'BLE MR. MAHESH BHAGWATI,J. Mr. Pawan Choudhary, 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. Pawan Choudhary Advocate on behalf of the applicant Smt. Kamlesh pertaining to F.I.R. No. 80/2009 of police station Sadar, Baran, in the offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 452, 323 of IPC and later on Section 302 of IPC added. 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. Learned counsel for the petitioner has canvassed that no specific allegation or overtact has been ascribed to the petitioner. It has not come out as to whom the petitioner caused any injury and on what site. The petitioner apprehends her arrest to be made by the police, whereas, there is no evidence against her on record, as such, she may be 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 witnesses namely Ramniwas, Ghanshyam, 2 Shivcharan, Parvati, Sugna, Ashok, Santosh and Kale Bai have stated the involvement of the petitioner in this instant case. She is alleged to have formed an unlawful assembly along with other co-accused persons, who were armed with Gandasi, Kutiya and lakadi and others. 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 Smt. Kamlesh stands dismissed. (MAHESH BHAGWATI), J. Mak/- 22