JUDGMENT 1. - This order governs the disposal of bail petition filed under Section 438 of Cr.PC. by Shri S.S. Sunda, Advocate, on behalf of the applicant Teji, Ramswaroop and Rama pertaining to FIR No. 151/2009 of Police Station, Nadbai District Bharatpur, in the offence under sections 420, 467, 468, 470, 471 and 120-B IPC. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Public Prosecutor for the State as also the learned counsel for the complainant and perused the relevant material available on record. 3. Having heard both the parties, carefully perused the complaint as also the evidence collected by the 1.0., it is made out that initially the land in dispute bearing old Khasra No. 485 (now No.655), belonged to 5 brothers namely, Shyam Lal, Pyare, Teji, Rama and Ramswaroop. Pyare died. Prior to his death, both Shyam Lal and Pyare sold this land to the complainant Pattu Ram in the year 1970 and got the sale deed registered in his favour. It is alleged that now all the rest of four brothers Shyam Lal, Teji, Rama and Ramswaroop knowingly that Shyam Lal and Pyare had earlier sold the land to complainant Pattu Ram, again re-sold the same to Ghanshyam and Rajendra S/o Nathuram. Thus, the land bearing Khasra No. 485 (655) measuring 1 bigha and 2 bishwas has been sold twice firstly by two brothers Shyam Lal and Pyare and thereafter secondly by four brothers including Shyam Lal for a consideration of Rs. 2,50,000/- to Ghanshyam and Rajendra causing a wrongful loss to complainant Pattu Ram. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that earlier this land was wrongly entered into in the revenue record in the name of Shyam Lal and Pyare but in fact the land belonged to the petitioners. A civil suit with regard to the cancellation of sale deed and declaration, has been pending in the civil court between all these parties. The petitioners are innocent and they have not committed any offence nor are they connected in any way with the offence of cheating. Learned counsel further contended that all three persons are of the age of around 90 years. Hence, ' they may be granted the indulgence of anticipatory bail. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail petition. 6. The petitioners are innocent and they have not committed any offence nor are they connected in any way with the offence of cheating. Learned counsel further contended that all three persons are of the age of around 90 years. Hence, ' they may be granted the indulgence of anticipatory bail. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail petition. 6. After taking into consideration the submissions made by both the parties, I feel that the allegation levelled against the petitioners does not seem to be false. baseless or groundless. Since one of the brothers Shyam Lal who had earlier sold the land to complainant Pattu Ram in the year 1970, is found to have again, in connivance with the rest of the three brothers, sold the same land to Ghanshyam, it cannot be said that the petitioners are innocent. 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. 7. In Pankaj v. 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. 8. In the result, this bail petition u/s 438 Cr.P.C. filed on behalf of petitioners Teji, Ramswaroop and Rama is dismissed.Bail Application Rejected. *******