1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH JAIPUR ORDER S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 6785/2009 Ramesh Chand vs. State of Rajasthan Dated : 10.09.2009 HON'BLE MR. MAHESH BHAGWATI,J. Mr. Ajay Singh, 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. Ajay Singh Advocate on behalf of the applicant Ramesh Chand pertaining to F.I.R. No. 97/2009 of police station Sarola Kalan, District Jhalawar, in the offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 308 and 341 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. Learned counsel for the petitioner has canvassed that all the co-accused persons except the petitioner have been enlarged on bail. There is no injury on any vital part of the body on any of the injured persons. The injuries as described by the Medical Jurist are simple in nature, except one caused on Ulna bone of Ranglal, which does not travel beyond the offence under Section 325 of IPC. The petitioner is being falsely implicated in this case, 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 2 material available on record, it is noticed that the injured Phool Chand has categorically stated in his Parchabayan that the petitioner was also one of the assailants who assaulted upon the injured persons and caused 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 Ramesh Chand stands dismissed. (MAHESH BHAGWATI), J. Mak/- 18