JUDGMENT 1. - This order governs the disposal of bail application filed under Section 438 of Cr.PC. by Mr. Anil Upman, Advocate on behalf of the applicants in FIR No. 201/2009 of police station Kardhani, Jaipur in the offences under Sections 366 and 120B of IPC. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the complainant as also the learned Public Prosecutor for the State and perused the material on record. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has canvassed that both Sangeeta and Jitendra were in love and finally they solemnized marriage on 14th August, 2008 in Arya Samaj Temple at Vidhyadhar Nagar, Jaipur. The brother of Sangeeta who happens to be the complainant in this case, got flustered on account of this inter caste marriage and lodged FIR in the offence under Section 366 of IPC against him. He has further contended that when the complainant Mahendra refused to recognise their marriage, Sangeeta left her home and thereafter has been living with her husband. As of today, she is on family way. The petitioners have been falsely implicated and are in no way connected with the alleged offence of Section 366 of IPC of the instant case. The date of birth of Sangeeta is 1st September, 1988 and thus, she has attained majority. She has voluntarily married with Jitendra and has been leading happy and comfortable life. Thus, neither Sangeeta nor Jitendra nor anybody else has committed any offence in this regard. The learned counsel has cited the case Lata Singh v. State of U.P. & Anr. reported in 2006(2) WLC (SC) Cri. 172 : 2006 Cr.L.R. (SC) 624 and contended that the facts of the instant case are similar to that of the case of Lata Singh. In that case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has expressed shock on the unlawful and high-handed act of the brother of that girl who married with boy of other caste. In view of these circumstances, both the petitioners deserve the grant of anticipatory bail. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and learned counsel for the complainant, in contra, have opposed the bail petition and canvassed that Jitendra is already a married man. He married to one Anita Kudi and thereafter deserted her. She has lodged FIR No. 135/09 also which is pending investigation in Police Station Ajitgarh, District Sikar. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and learned counsel for the complainant, in contra, have opposed the bail petition and canvassed that Jitendra is already a married man. He married to one Anita Kudi and thereafter deserted her. She has lodged FIR No. 135/09 also which is pending investigation in Police Station Ajitgarh, District Sikar. It is not a case of simplicitor inter caste marriage. The facts of the case of Lata Singh are altogether different and the same are not applicable in the instant case. In the case on hand, the accused Jitendra, by way of marrying with Sangeeta, has committed an offence of bigamy, which is a continuing offence. The complainant has not opposed the inter caste marriage but he has opposed the fact that Jitendra being already married, abducted Sangeeta with an intent to marry her. Sangeeta has yet not been recovered by Police. The petitioners have wrongfully confined her somewhere. Only after her recovery, it can be ascertained as to whether she has voluntarily accompanied Jitendra or they have abducted her. There is ample evidence against the petitioners who are found to have aided Jitendra in abducting Sangeeta. The petitioner Pradeep Todawat is brother of Jitendra and Suraj is in his close relation, thus, the petitioners do not deserve any anticipatory bail. Having considered the submissions made at the bar and carefully perused the relevant material available on record, in my view the accusation as levelled against the petitioners do not seem to be false, groundless or baseless. 5. 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 petitioners are totally false and baseless. Hence, in the instant case, the petitioners are not entitled to get the anticipatory bail. 6. In the result, the bail petition filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. on behalf of the accused-petitioners namely Suraj Todawat S/o Shri Ramlal Todawat and Pradeep Todawat S/o Shri Bhagwan Sahai Todawat stands dismissed.Bail Application Rejected. *******