MAHESH BHAGWATI, J. - (1.) THIS order governs the disposal of bail application filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. by Mr. J.S. Sodhi Advocate on behalf of the applicant Dularam in FIR No. 148/08 of police station Malpura District Tonk in the offence under Section 8/15 of N.D.P.S. Act, 1988.
(2.) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Public Prosecutor for the State and perused the material on record. Learned counsel for the petitioner has canvassed that the petitioner is in no way connected with the commission of offence of the case on hand. Neither the statement of any of the two arrested accused has been recorded by the Investigating Officer under Section 67 of N.D.P.S. Act nor any contraband article is to be recovered from him. It is not the petitioner who ran from the spot. A false case has been foisted against him, as such, he may be granted indulgence of anticipatory bail. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail petition primarily on the ground that the petitioner was also along with other accused persons in vehicle No. RJ-14 2G 8240 wherein 582 kg. Doda Post was being transported and was recovered from the conscious possession of the two accused persons who were nabbed on the spot. The petitioner somehow succeeded in fleeing from there but it does not negate his involvement. Having reflected over the submissions made at the bar and scanned the relevant material available on record, it is noticed that three persons were found in the vehicle No. RJ-14 2G 8240 which was detained by police during Nakabandi. Two accused persons Manoj and Kalu were nabbed on the spot but the third person succeeded in fleeing from there who was identified by the two co-accused persons to be Gopal @ Gada @ Harlal Jat @ Dula Ram Rebari. In Pankaj vs. State of Raj., RLW 1996(1) Raj., 628 and Narender Kumar vs. State of Rajasthan 1996 Cr.L.J. pg. 2006, 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 accused-petitioner Dula Ram stands dismissed.;