MAHESH BHAGWATI, J. - (1.) THIS order governs the disposal of bail application filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. by Mr. Sunit Avasthi Advocate on behalf of the applicants pertaining to F.I.R. No. 55/2009 of police station Clock Tower, Ajmer in the offences under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468 and 471 read with Section 34 of IPC.
(2.) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the complainant as also learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and perused the relevant material available on record. Learned counsel for the petitioners has canvassed that they are being falsely implicated in this case, whereas, they have not committed any offence punishable under Section 420, 406, 467, 468 and 471 read with Section 34 of IPC. It is true that both the complainant and petitioners entered into an agreement and the complainant deposited Rs. 8 lacs in advance with the petitioners and the petitioners were to supply garments to the complainant. The petitioners are running a business in the name of M/s. Suchi Textiles. They gave a franchise to the complainant but since the complainant did not furnish the showroom as per requirement of the company, the petitioners did not supply the garments for sale. Thereafter, the complainant withdrew and asked to return the entire amount which was not possible, as the petitioners had spent a lot of money in preparing garments etc. for him. The petitioner's company is reputed and prestigious and having a turn over of crores of rupees per annum. They are apprehending their arrest in this false case, hence, they may be granted indulgence of anticipatory bail. Learned counsel for the complainant as also learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State has opposed the bail petition on the ground that the complainant had deposited Rs. 8 lacs in advance with the petitioners and thereafter, they refused to supply the garments as per the terms and conditions laid down in the agreement. The petitioners also found fault in the showroom after accepting amount of Rs. 8 lacs. Petitioner's company is not of that reputation as has been described by the learned counsel. The petitioners neither have returned his money nor supplied garments in lieu thereof to the complainant, hence, they have committed the breach of trust as also cheating with him and the bail petition may be dismissed. 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. 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.
(3.) IN the result, the bail petition filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. on behalf of the petitioners stands dismissed.;