MAHESH BHAGWATI, J. - (1.) THIS order governs the disposal of bail application filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. by Mr. William Pathak Advocate on behalf of the applicant Bhanu Pratap Singh pertaining to F.I.R. No. 148/2009 of police station Ramganj, Ajmer, in the offences under Sections 143, 148, 149, 323, 341 and 308 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 he has been falsely implicated in this case and is in no way connected with the commission of the offences of the instant case, as such, he is entitled to crave indulgence of anticipatory bail. Learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State has opposed the bail petition. 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 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 petitioner Bhanu Pratap Singh stands dismissed.MUKESH_C_;