1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH JAIPUR ORDER S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 6921/2009 Gyarsi lal & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan Dated : 10.09.2009 HON'BLE MR. MAHESH BHAGWATI,J. Mr. Kanta Prasad Sharma, for the petitioner. 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. Kanta Prasad Sharma Advocate on behalf of the applicants pertaining to F.I.R. No. 314/2009 of police station Pratap Nagar, Jaipur, in the offences under Sections 353 and 504 of IPC. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as also learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and perused the relevant material available on record. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has canvassed that they are being falsely implicated in this case on account of animosity between the parties. One of the petitioners is a Government employee, who was on duty on the alleged date of occurrence, hence, his presence on the date of occurrence could not be possible and his involvement in committing the offence could not be there. Neither the petitioners are alleged to have caused any injury or damage any property, as such, they deserves to be enlarged on anticipatory bail. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State has opposed the bail petition on the ground that the witnesses namely Jagdish Prasad, Ashok Kumar and Suresh Kumar have categorically 2 stated in their statements that the petitioners deterred them from discharging their official duties. 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 petitioners 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 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 namely Gyarsi lal, Ramswaroop and Bondu stands dismissed. (MAHESH BHAGWATI), J. Mak/- s-23