MAHESH BHAGWATI, J. - (1.) THIS order governs the disposal of bail application filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. by Mr. S.K. Gupta Advocate on behalf of the applicant Sugreev Singh pertaining to F.I.R. No. 222/2009 of police station Bamanwas, District Sawai Madhopur in the offences under Sections 447, 307 and 325 of IPC.
(2.) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioner as also learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and perused the relevant material available on record. Learned counsel for the petitioner has canvassed that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. Both the complainant party and the petitioner's party have lodged the FIRs against each other. Members of both the parties during fight sustained injuries. Had the petitioner been present on the spot and participated in fighting, he would have also sustained the injuries but that is not the case, which evinces that the petitioner was not present on the spot. He has been made accused in this case for the reason that he filed a report with police against the complainant party. Learned counsel has further contended that albeit, injured chhuttan is alleged to have sustained eight injuries on his person but none of the injuries has been found to be dangerous to life. Chhuttan is said to have sustained one grievous injury on the third (middle) Metacarpal bone of left hand. The injuries allegedly caused on skull have been found to be simple in nature. The Medical Jurist has not opined any of them to be dangerous to life. Thus the case, on the basis of injuries sustained by the injured Chhuttan, does not travel beyond the offence under Section 325 of IPC and this offence is bailable. The police has wrongly registered the case in the offence under Section 307 of IPC, hence, the petitioner may be granted indulgence of anticipatory bail. Learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State has opposed the bail petition on the ground that the injured Chhuttan, in all, sustained eight injuries on his body out of which, injury No.1 is the incised wound and injuries No. 2, 3, 4 and 5 are the lacerated wound. All these five injuries have been caused on the right, left, parietal, occipital region. Injury No.1 is found to have been ascribed to the petitioner Sugreev Singh. The accused party caused five injuries on the skul of the injured Chhuttan. Causing five injuries one after another on the head clearly proves the intention of the accused persons. From the cumulative effect of these injuries it can be said that the petitioner's party had an intention to kill him, hence, the petition may be dismissed. Having considered the submissions made at the bar and carefully perused the relevant material available on record including the injury report of injured Chhuttan, it is noticed that the accusations as levelled against the petitioner do not seem to be false, groundless and baseless. It is not a fit case wherein, the petitioner 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 petitioner is 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 Sugreev Singh stands dismissed.MUKESH_C_;