IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR. ORDER DATE :- 04.07.2008 S.B.CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION NO. 3951/2008 Shri Kishori lal Sen & Anr. Vs. The State of Rajasthan HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH BHAGWATI Mr. Pradeep Choudhary, for the appellant. Mr. Subhash Khandelwal, for the complainant. Mr. B.K. Sharma, learned Public Prosecutor, for the State. This order governs the disposal of bail application filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. by Shri Pradeep Choudhary, Advocate on behalf of Kishori Lal Sen and Smt. Pushpa Sen pertaining to F.I.R. No. 26/2008 registered with Police Station Mahila Thana (East), Jaipur City, Jaipur for the offences under Section 498 A and 406 IPC. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as also the learned Public Prosecutor for the State and perused the relevant material available on record. The learned counsel for the applicants has contended that the husband of the complainant Jyoti has already been enlarged on bail and petitioners have been falsely implicated merely for the reason that they are the parents of the boy. A perusal of the FIR reveals that the allegations leveled against the petitioners are omnibus and devoid of particulars. Whatever allegations leveled with regard to cruelty with Mrs. Jyoti are in F.I.R., they have been against her husband Shri Gaurav Sen. Learned counsel has further contended that both the petitioners are Government servants and there is no apprehension of their absconding during the investigation of the case. They are always prepared to co-operate with the investigation conducted by the Investigating Officer. Hence they may be enlarged on bail. Learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the bail application stating that the allegations leveled against the petitioners are not omnibus rather they are peculiar and specific instances of cruelty have quoted in the First Information Report. The learned Public Prosecutor has also submitted that the reasons for which the lower Court has rejected the petitioner's bail petition are quite cogent, just and proper and the case is still pending investigation, as such, in view of these circumstances, the petitioners should not be given pre-arrest bail. Having considered the rival submissions made at the bar and perused the bail order dated May 29, 2008 rendered by the Additional Sessions Judge No. 4, Jaipur City, Jaipur, it is nowhere found that allegations leveled against the petitioners are false or groundless. In the case of Pankaj Vs. State of Rajasthan (RLW 1996 (1) Raj., 528) this Court has held that the provisions of Section 438 Cr.P.C. should sparingly be used and that too when the accusation against the petitioner is found to be false and groundless. This is not such a case where the petitioners may seek pre arrest bail from the Court. A perusal of the contents of First Information Report reveals that the specific allegations have been levelled not only against Gaurav Sen but against the petitioners Kishori lal Sen and Smt. Pushpa Sen also. Hence, in view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, I do not deem it proper to grant pre arrest bail to the petitioners and as such the petition filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. is liable to be dismissed and thus dismissed accordingly. (MAHESH BHAGWATI), J. Mak/- 1