ORDER Since these two petitions under S. 438, Cr. P.C. praying for anticipatory bail arise out of the same FIR No. 58/1999 under S. 376, I.P.C. of Police Station, Bharmour, therefore, are disposed of by this common order. 2. The case against the accused-petitioners, in brief, is that Shanti Devi (hereinafter referred to as the prosecutrix) was in her tent at Budru on 26-8-1999. The accused-petitioners came there at about 1.30 p.m. while under the influence of liquor. They initially asked the prosecutrix to give some water and she obliged. Thereafter they asked her to give them liquor. The prosecutrix, however, informed that she had no liquor. The accused then started abusing her. On insistence of the accused in abusing the prosecutrix, she gave them one or two chimta blows, whereupon they went out of the tent. They returned back to the tent along with water and asked the prosecutrix to drink that water. When she refused, she was caught hold of by accused-Arjan and the other accused-Tara put that water in her mouth. Some of the water fell down but some got into the stomach of the prosecutrix. The prosecutrix thereafter felt giddy and finally became unconscious. She regained her conscious in the hospital at Chamba and her statement under S. 154, Cr. P.C. was recorded by the police. She narrated the aforesaid occurrence in her statement. She was thereafter got medically examined and on such examination, it was found that she was subjected to sexual intercourse. In her tatimavyan recorded by the police after her medical examination, she has stated that when she regained consciousness, there was pain in and bleeding from her private part, and she was feeling pain all over her body and was feeling giddy also. Consequently, a case under Ss. 376/328/34, I.P.C. has been registered by the Bharmour police against the accused wherein the investigation is on. The skeletal age of the prosecutrix has been found to be between 14 to 16 years. 3. The accused-petitioners claim bail on the grounds that the FIR has been lodged after 4 or 5 days of the alleged occurrence and the medical examination has also been conducted after 4/5 days of the alleged commission of the offence. The skeletal age of the prosecutrix has been found to be between 14 to 16 years. 3. The accused-petitioners claim bail on the grounds that the FIR has been lodged after 4 or 5 days of the alleged occurrence and the medical examination has also been conducted after 4/5 days of the alleged commission of the offence. It is further claimed that the accused are not connected with the alleged offence in any manner whatsoever and are unaware as to how and at whose instance, they have been named in the F.I.R. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Addl. Advocate General and have also gone through the investigation record. 5. Be it stated at the very outset that the remedy of anticipatory bail is an extraordinary remedy provided in law and has to be resorted to only in exceptional cases and that too, if special grounds are made out. In a case where it is not prima facie made out that attempt is being made to falsely involve the accused in a case with a view to disgrace him or malign him with some ulterior or mala fide motive, anticipatory bail cannot be granted. Similarly, where a serious and heinous offence is prima facie shown to have been committed, anticipatory bail should not be granted. 6. In the instant case, the facts whereof have already been set out hereinabove, the allegations against the accused-petitioners prima facie show their involvement in the commission of a serious and heinous offence and thereby having satisfied their lust after administering something to the prosecutrix whereby she became unconscious and it was in that state of unconsciousness that she was subjected to sexual intercourse. The investigation in the case is yet in progress, therefore, on the face of it, it is not a case where anticipatory bail should be granted to the accused. 7. As a result, these applications are dismissed. Petition dismissed.