1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH JAIPUR ORDER S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 7034/2009 Mahipal vs. State of Rajasthan Dated : 16.09.2009 HON'BLE MR. MAHESH BHAGWATI,J. Mr. R.C. Jatav, 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.C. Jatav Advocate on behalf of the applicant Mahipal pertaining to F.I.R. No. 265/2009 of police station Behrore, District Alwar, in the offences under Sections 143, 341, 323, 308 and 379 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 initially, the case came to be registered in the offences under Sections 143, 341, 323 and 379 of IPC but later on the offence under Section 308 of IPC was also added. He has further contended that the complainant Satish Kumar lodged the FIR with the police and has filed an affidavit to the fact that he inadvertently recorded the name of the petitioner Mahipal in the FIR, whereas, he was actually not present on the spot, at the time of occurrence. The petitioner is a student of M.A. Previous. He is being falsely implicated and 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 on the 2 ground that both Krishna Kumar and Satish Kumar sustained injuries on the vital part of the body. Krishna Kumar sustained two injuries one on frontal region and another on temporal region and bruise on chest. Similarly, Satish also sustained one injury on skull and two more injuries have been found to be simple in nature but the injury of Krishna Kumar on temporal region have been found to be grievous in nature. 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 Mahipal stands dismissed. (MAHESH BHAGWATI), J. Mak/- s-52