JUDGMENT 1. - Since both the aforesaid petitions pertain to and arise out of FIR No.204/2008 of Police Station Buhana, District Jhunujhunu registered for the offences u/s.420 and 120-B of IPC, they are being disposed of by this common order. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the complainant (sic) as also the learned Public Prosecutor for the State and perused the material on record. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has canvassed that they do not occupy any position in Singhaniya University, Pacheri Bari, District Jhunjhunu. The Registrar and Vice Chancellor or the University have already been arrested and granted bail by the courts. The petitioners are being falsely implicated whereas they are not at all connected with any affair of the University. Neither they are occupying any position in the University nor they are in any way attached with the affairs of the University. If the students have been given admission in B.Ed. Course through the advertisement issued by the University, the concerned officers of the University are responsible for the same. The petitioners are innocent and they have not committed any offence. Apart from this, the fees of the students have been returned to them and the cause of action has come to an end, hence, the petitioners may be granted indulgence of anticipatory bail. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail petition on the ground that the applications for the admission in B.Ed, course were invited by the Singhaniya University and admission notice was issued by its Registrar. 5. Shri Maman Singh, Addl. S.P., who investigated the case is present in court. He has submitted that the petitioner Sanjeev Kumar was the Secretary of Singhaniya Foundation Education Samittee and petitioner Raj Kumar was its Chairman. So far as petitioner Naresh Yadav is concerned, he was the Principal of Singhaniya institute of Women for Education and Research, The petitioners were occupying responsible positions in these institutions and they, had given admission to the students pursuant to the admission notice issued by the Registrar, Singhaniya University. The petitioners had no authority to give admission to the students without obtaining re-cognition from NCTE. Thus, the petitioners are liable for the offence of cheating and the bail petitions should be dismissed. 6. The petitioners had no authority to give admission to the students without obtaining re-cognition from NCTE. Thus, the petitioners are liable for the offence of cheating and the bail petitions should be dismissed. 6. Having considered the submissions made at the Bar and carefully scanned the relevant material on record, it is noticed that the Singhaniya University invited applications for admissions to B.Ed. Course, which is said to have been approved by the NCTE. Schedule II of the Singhaniya University, Pacheri Bari (Jhunjhunu) Act, 2008 does not contain the B.Ed course in the Humanities Group. Schedule II of the Act enables us to know as to what courses are being run by the University. The faculties being run by the University have been classified in 5 groups, (i) Law, (ii) Management, (iii) Science and Technology, (iv) Bio-information/Bio-Technology and (v) Humanities. In Humanities Group, many courses are prescribed but it does not contain B.Ed, course, which evinces that the Singhaniya University had issued admission notice for a course (B.Ed, course), which was not included in the Schedule and thus, the University was not authorised to run this course. The learned counsel for the petitioners also argued that all the institutions of Singhaniya Group got merged in the University, but such arrangement is not found to be anywhere in any provision of the Act. With a view to camouflage the acts of the petitioners, the Seamed counsel argued that they did not occupy any position in the Singhaniya University, so they were not liable for admissions in the B.Ed., course. On the other hand, it is argued that the Singhaniya Institute for Women is a part of the University and the University is competent to run any course without obtaining recognition from any regulating body, but this argument is found to be without any substance. If these Institutions are not a part of the University, then the argument of Addl. S.P., Maman Singh, prevails. However, I without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, do feel that accusations as levelled against the petitioners do not seem to be false, groundless or baseless. It is not a fit case wherein, the petitioners 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. It is not a fit case wherein, the petitioners 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 Rajasthan, 1996 (1) RLW (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. 8. In the result, both the bail petitions u/s.438 Cr.P.C. filed on behalf of petitioners Sanjeev Kumar, Naresh Yadav and Raj Kumar are dismissed.Bail Application Dismissed. *******