1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH JAIPUR ORDER S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 6776/2009 Bhaiya lal vs. State of Rajasthan Dated : 16.09.2009 HON'BLE MR. MAHESH BHAGWATI,J. Mr. R.R. Baisla, 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. R.R. Baisla Advocate on behalf of the applicant Bhaiya lal pertaining to F.I.R. No. 114/2009 of police station Bapcha, Baran, in the offence under Section 147, 148, 149, 307, 332, 353, 457 and 380 of IPC and Section 3 of PDPP Act. 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 the name of the petitioner does not figure in the FIR. The accused Bhaiya lal, who is named in the FIR, has already been enlarged on bail by the learned court below. This petitioner Bhaiya lal is a different man, who is in no way connected with the commission of the offences of the instant case, hence, he 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 400 to 500 people armed with deadly weapons 2 assembled near the northern boundary of Thermal Power Plant and attacked on the persons involved in the security of the same. It is also noticed that this crowd was agitating against the non- supply of electricity. The crowd pelted stones and damaged the public property, as a result of which, many police officers and security personnels sustained injuries. 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 Bhaiya lal stands dismissed. (MAHESH BHAGWATI), J. Mak/- 24