IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH JAIPUR ORDER S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Appl. No. 637/2010 Babu Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan Dated : 29.1.2010 HON'BLE MR. MAHESH BHAGWATI, J. Mr. Mahesh Gupta, 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. Mahesh Gupta, Advocate on behalf of the applicant Babu lal pertaining to F.I.R. No. 240/2008 of police station Govindgarh, District Jaipur, registered in the offences under Sections 420, 120-B of IPC and Section 3(1) (IV) (V) of SC/ST Act. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Public Prosecutor for the State and perused the material on record. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has canvassed that he has been falsely implicated in this case and even his name does not figure in the FIR. While drawing my attention to the FIR, the learned counsel contended that albeit in the complaint one Babu lal son of Shri Sedu Ram by caste Jat resident of Ramlyawala at present Nangal Koju has been shown as accused at serial No.33, but the present petitioner Babu lal son of Shri Suna Ram Yadav resident of Nangal Koju, police station Govindgarh, District Jaipur is not that Babu lal. He is -2- simply a witness to the registered Sale Deed as alleged by the prosecution. He is not a benefiting also in any manner with regard to sale of land. 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 including bail order dated 04.01.2010 rendered by Special Judge, SC/ST Court, Jaipur City, Jaipur, it is noticed that his anticipatory bail application was dismissed by the Session Court on the ground that the petitioner was found to have been involved in hatching a conspiracy with Prahlad to sell the land illegally which in fact belonged to the complainant. The allegations as levelled against the petitioner do not seem to be false, groundless and baseless. The provisions of Section 438 of Cr.P.C. are sparingly used in rarest of rare cases. It is not a fit case wherein, the petitioner can be granted indulgence of anticipatory bail. 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. -3- From the facts on record, it is not reflected that the accusation against the petitioners are totally false and baseless. Hence, in the instant case, the petitioner is not entitled to get anticipatory bail. 7. In the result, the bail petition filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. on behalf of the petitioner Babu lal S/o Shri Suna Ram Yadav stands dismissed. (MAHESH BHAGWATI),J. Pcg