MAHESH BHAGWATI, J. - (1.) THIS order governs the disposal of bail application filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. by Mr. Sanjay Kumar Sharma Advocate on behalf of the applicant Hari Charan in FIR No. 162/2008 of police station Sarolakala District Jhalawar in the offences under Sections 308, 323 and 341/34 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 submitted that the co-accused Manoj of this case has already been granted anticipatory bail and the case of the petitioner is similar to that of Manoj, as has been observed by the Learned Sessions Judge, Jhalawar also in his bail order dated 16.01.2009. The petitioner is not alleged to have caused any grievous injury to the complainant Ram Chandra Naagar. The offence at the most is made out under Section 323 of IPC, hence, the petitioner may also be granted indulgence of anticipatory bail. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail petition primarily on the ground that the petitioner along with other co-accused persons prevented the police from proceeding, obstructed in discharging their duty and pelted stones upon him. The petitioner is involved in offence under Section 308 of IPC which is triable by the Court of Sessions and thus, looking to the gravity of the offence, the anticipatory bail may be denied to the petitioner. Having reflected over the submissions made at the bar and scanned the relevant material available on record, it is nowhere found that allegations leveled against the petitioners are false or groundless. 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 accused-petitioner Hari Charan stands dismissed.;