Judgment: M.K. Mudgal, J. 1. Case diary is available. 2. This is first bail application under section 438 of Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant-accused for grant of anticipatory bail apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No. 81/14, police station Sagar district Sagar for offences registered under sections 341, 323, 325, 294, 386 read with section 34 of I.P.C. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that except the offence under section 386 of the I.P.C. the remaining offences are bailable. There is no evidence prima facie on record regarding the offence under section 386 of I.P.C. Consequently, the applicant is entitled to get anticipatory bail in this matter. 4. Learned PP opposing the submissions made on behalf of the applicant submitted that the applicant along with other co-accused assaulted with lathis and other weapons the complainant Najam Singh and Mithhu, who have received various injuries on their bodies and fracture was also caused to injured Najam Singh. Counsel further urged that considering the evidence in case diary the application filed by the applicant deserves to be rejected. 5. Heard the arguments of both the parties. 6. As per prosecution story, complainant Najam Singh lodged an FIR stating therein that on 26.3.2014 he along with driver Mithhu Khan had gone to harvest the crops in a field. At that time harvester dashed against heavy stone lying in the agricultural field. Resultantly its pipe was damaged. Thereafter, the applicant-accused Rakesh along with other co-accused assaulted the driver as well as complainant Najam Singh with lathis and other weapons. Consequently, both sustained various injuries on their bodies. Further it emerges from the statement of witness Mithhu Khan that the accused persons demanded illegally a sum of Rs. 5000/- from the injured. 7. On perusal of medical report of Najam Singh, it becomes clear that 14 injuries were caused to him by the applicant as well as his associates. Similarly 4 injuries were caused to Mithhu Singh. Apart from this, Najam Singh sustained grievous injuries also. In view of the facts it cannot be inferred that there is no evidence on record to implicate the accused in this case. At this stage, the case cannot be minutely considered to assess whether offence under section 386 of I.P.C. is made out or not. This question can only be considered after completion of investigation and filing of charge sheet. 8. At this stage, the case cannot be minutely considered to assess whether offence under section 386 of I.P.C. is made out or not. This question can only be considered after completion of investigation and filing of charge sheet. 8. The scope of section 438 of Cr.P.C. has been discussed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Padam Narain Aggarwal and others- (2008) 13 SCC 305 which reads as under:- Section 438 CrPC makes special provision for granting "anticipatory bail" which was introduced in 1973. The expression "anticipatory bail" has not been defined in CrPC. Anticipatory bail means a bail in anticipation of arrest. The expression "anticipatory bail" is a misnomer inasmuch as it is not as if bail presently granted is in anticipation of arrest. Where a competent court grants "anticipatory bail", it makes an order that in the event of arrest, a person shall be released on bail. The power of granting "anticipatory bail" is extraordinary in character and only in exceptional cases where it appears that a person is falsely implicated or a frivolous case is launched against him or "there are reasonable grounds for holding that a person accused of an offence is not likely to abscond or otherwise misuse his liberty while on bail" that such power may be exercised. Thus, the power is "unusual in nature" and is entrusted only to the higher echelons of judicial service i.e. a Court of Session and a High Court. 9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court does not deem it fit to grant anticipatory bail in this case. Therefore, the application is hereby rejected.