IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH JAIPUR
ORDER
S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 6496/2009
Mohan lal & ors. vs. State of Rajasthan
Dated : 01.09.2009
HON’BLE MR. MAHESH BHAGWATI,J.
Mr. Sudarshan Laddha, for the petitioners.
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. Sudarshan Laddha Advocate on behalf of the applicants pertaining to F.I.R. No. 240/2009 of police station Talera, District Bundi, in the offences under Sections 147, 283, 341, 323, 427, 353, 336, 436 and 149 of IPC and Section 3 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act as also Section 8B of National Highway Act.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as also learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and perused the relevant material available on record.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has canvassed that they have been falsely implicated in this case and are in no way connected with the commission of the offences of the instant case, as such, 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 the accusations as levelled against the petitioners do 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 stands dismissed.
(MAHESH BHAGWATI), J.
Mak/-
2