MAHESH BHAGWATI, J. - (1.) SINCE both the aforesaid bail petitions filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., arise out of and pertain to FIR No. 327/2009 of police station Kotwali, Sawaimadhopur registered in the offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307 and 336 of IPC, they are being disposed of by this common order.
(2.) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioners as also the learned Public Prosecutor for the State and perused relevant material available on record. Learned counsel for the petitioner has canvassed that they have been falsely implicated by the complainant with the connivance of police. There is no injury report on record. The petitioners have not been alleged to have caused any injury to anyone. They are innocent, hence, they may be granted indulgence of anticipatory bail. Learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State has opposed the bail petition on the ground that the petitioners are the habitual offenders. Accused Shanu has been facing trial in three other criminal cases whereas, Abid has been facing trial in two more criminal cases apart this one, hence, their 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 petitioners are alleged to have pelted stones on the house of the complainant and opened fire from a gun. It is true that none sustained any injury but it is also found that the accused petitioners associated with 15 to 20 persons more armed with deadly weapons, encircled the house of the complainant, pelted stones on the house and opened fire. Petitioners are found to be habitual offenders, hence, I, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, do feel that it is not a case wherein, anticipatory bail may be granted to the petitioners as the accusations as levelled against the petitioners 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 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 namely Aabid, Shanu and Kadeer stands dismissed.;