IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.8737 of 2008 AMAR JEE @ AMAR JHA @ AMAR KUMAR Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 3 08.08.2008 Heard learned counsels for the petitioner and the State. Petitioner is an accused for the offences registered under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that although there is allegation against this petitioner with regard to alleged offence, however on perusal of the injury report, it would appear that the injury which has been found on the person of the informant does not attracts the offence under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. It is further submitted that as a matter of fact the informant had gone to the temple and on account of having water on the way he himself slept and sustained the injury. Learned Addl. P.P. appearing on behalf of the State on perusal of the case diary submits that during investigation the material has come and witnesses have supported the prosecution case. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the statement of the witness, who has supported the prosecution case, should not be taken into consideration as he is a resident of a distant place. Considering the nature of allegations levelled against this petitioner, I am not inclined to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. His prayer for grant of anticipatory bail is, accordingly, rejected. Manish/- ( Shailesh Kumar Sinha,J.)