1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH JAIPUR ORDER S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 6189/2009 Prashant & Anr. vs. State of Rajasthan Dated : 11.08.2009 HON'BLE MR. MAHESH BHAGWATI,J. Mr. Nikhilesh Katara, for the petitioners. Mr. G.S. Fauzdar, Public Prosecutor for the State. This order governs the disposal of bail application filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. by Mr. Nikhilesh Katara Advocate on behalf of the applicants namely Prashant and Ramniwas pertaining to F.I.R. No. 153/2009 of police station Dabi, District Bundi in the offences under Sections 143, 365, 342 and 323 of IPC. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as also the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and perused the relevant material available on record. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has canvassed that the petitioners are alleged to have abducted the complainant Laxmi Narayan Rathore and wrongfully confined him in the room. It is also alleged that they gave beating and caused injuries on his body. Learned counsel has contended that on account of animosity on the issue of a contract of Bhang, the petitioners have been falsely implicated and the police intends to arrest them, whereas, they are innocent and have committed no offence, hence, they are entitled to crave 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 2 the contents of FIR are sufficient to deduced that the accusation as levelled against the petitioners does not seem to be false, groundless and baseless. It is not a fit case wherein, the petitioners 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 petitioners are 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 petitioners namely Prashant and Ramniwas stands dismissed. 8. However, keeping in view the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, they are granted liberty to surrender before the concerned Magistrate having jurisdiction. The concerned Magistrate is directed to consider and dispose of the bail petition, if filed, in accordance with the provisions of law, preferably on the same day. (MAHESH BHAGWATI), J. Mak/- s-51