1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH JAIPUR ORDER S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 6944/2009 Mangal Singh vs. State of Rajasthan Dated : 09.09.2009 HON'BLE MR. MAHESH BHAGWATI,J. Mr. Sanjay Gangwar, for the petitioner. Mr. G.S. Fauzdar, Public Prosecutor for the State. Mr. Hemant Kumar Sharma, for the complainant. This order governs the disposal of bail application filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. by Mr. Sanjay Gangwar Advocate on behalf of the applicant Mangal Singh pertaining to F.I.R. No. 82/2009 of police station Shahpura, District Jaipur Rural, in the offences under Sections 498- A and 406 of IPC. 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. Marriage of Pinki @ Neha and the petitioner Mangal Singh took place on 21st May, 2005. Learned counsel for the petitioner has canvassed that he has been living separately. The allegations with regard to cruelty and criminal breach of trust are totally false. The petitioner has been falsely implicated and is in no way connected with the commission of alleged offences of the instant case. He wants to keep his wife with him, for that he has already filed an application under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act, for restitution of conjugal rights but the complainant Pinki has refused to come back. On the contrary, she wants to seek divorce from him, hence, he may be granted indulgence of anticipatory bail. 2 4. Learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State as also learned counsel for the complainant have opposed the bail petition on the ground that one bail petition filed by Smt. Gulab under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. was dismissed by this Court. The petitioner is the husband. There is ample evidence with regard to cruelty and criminal breach of trust on record against him. Hence, the 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 Mangal Singh stands dismissed. (MAHESH BHAGWATI), J. Mak/- s-35