IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH JAIPUR ORDER S.B. CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION NO.5810/2009 Mohar Singh vs. State of Rajasthan Dated : 06.08.2009 HON'BLE MR. MAHESH BHAGWATI,J. Mr. Sanjay Mehla, for the petitioner. Mr. Amit Punia, Public Prosecutor for the State. Mr. M.P. Mathur, for the complainant. This order governs the disposal of bail application filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. by Mr. Sanjay Mehla Advocate on behalf of the petitioner Mohar Singh in FIR No. 22/2009 of Police Station Khedli District Alwar in the offences under Sections 143, 323, 341, 452, 427, 326 and 307 of I.P.C. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Public Prosecutor for the State and learned counsel for the complainant and perused the material on record. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has canvassed that co-accused persons namely Jai Singh, Mukesh, Bhoor Singh, Ram Sahay, Kadu, Pappu, Gagli and Hablu have already been granted anticipatory bail by the Co-ordinate Bench. The case of the petitioner is similar to that of the co-accused persons. Both the parties have compromised which is being verified by the learned counsel for the complainant. The petitioner is a school teacher, hence, the petitioner may also be granted indulgence of anticipatory bail on the ground of parity. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the complainant have opposed the bail petition for the namesake. 5. Having considered the submissions made at the bar and carefully scanned the relevant material available on record, it is noticed that at the time of occurrence, the petitioner Mohar Singh was armed with Farsi and assaulted upon the head of the complainant. The offence under Sections 307 and 326 of I.P.C. are not compoundable under Section 320 of Cr.P.C. The compromise, if taken place between the parties, does not influence the provisions of law. The accusation as levelled against the petitioner does not seem to be false, groundless and baseless. 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 accused-petitioner Mohar Singh S/o. Shri Ramsahay stands dismissed. (MAHESH BHAGWATI),J. Manoj. item no.20.