- (1.) THIS order governs the disposal of bail application filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. by Mr. Madhav Mitra Advocate on behalf of the applicants Gyani Mahendra Singh and Uttam Kaur in FIR No. 218/07 of police station Mahaveer Nagar, District Kota in the offences under Sections 406, 420, 120-B of IPC.
(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 contended that the fact of first marriage of Amarjeet Singh S/o. Gyani Mahendra Singh was very well within the knowledge of the complainant Pritam Singh who married his daughter Balvinder Kaur @ Babli with Amarjeet Singh. He has further contended that Balvinder Kaur was also married to one Jasveer Singh before being married to Amarjeet Singh. Balvinder Kaur has now expired on 13.03.2007 and both the parties have compromised with each other. It is also contended that vide one agreement dated 13.10.2007 all the articles of dowry have been entrusted back by Amarjeet Singh to Jasveer Singh. No dispute subsists between parties now. Hence, the petitioners deserve to be released on anticipatory bail. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail petition primarily on the ground that the petitioners concealed the fact of Amarjeet Singh being already married and thus cheated the complainant Pritam Singh and his daughter Balvinder Kaur. It is this fact of cheating that gave a shocking jolt to Balvinder Kaur who finally expired on 13.03.2007 because of this fact of cheating merely. Hence, under these circumstances, the petitioners do not deserve any bail. Having reflected over the submissions made at the bar and scanned the relevant material available on record, it is nowhere found that the petitioners had already disclosed the fact of Amarjeet Singh being already married to the complainant Pritam Singh and his daughter. It is also nowhere found that Balvinder Kaur in spite of knowing the fact of Amarjeet Singh being already married agreed to marry with him. It is also not found that this fact was already in the knowledge of the complainant Pritam Singh. It is not desirable nor also required to appreciate the evidence at this stage when we are disposing of the bail petition but these facts while deciding the bail petition also cannot be abandoned from the mind. It is very well established that the provisions of Section 438 of Cr.P.C. are sparingly used in rarest of rare cases. 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 petitioners 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 accused-petitioners Gyan Mahendra Singh and Uttam Kaur stands dismissed. However, the petitioners may surrender before the learned trial court who if, any bail petition is filed by them, shall consider and decide on the same day.;