IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.5428 of 2009 MANTU SINGH Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 2/ 22/05/2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The petitioner apprehends arrest in a police case under Sections- 364 and 395 of I.P.C. It is submitted that the F.I.R. names 11 persons accompanied by 20 unnamed. The petitioner is not one of them. The petitioner has neither been named in the Section-161 Cr.P.C. statement of the witnesses nor in Section-164 Cr.P.C. statement of certain victims. It is lastly submitted that co-accused Anandi Singh whose name appeared in Section-161 Cr.P.C. statement of witnesses, but who was not named in Section-164 Cr.P.C., statement has been granted anticipatory bail. Learned counsel for the State, from the Section-164 Cr.P.C. statement points out that even while it names certain persons it states that they were accompanied by 30 to 35 unnamed others. The impugned order of rejection notices that the name of the petitioner has transpired on confession of the co- accused Santosh Yadav @ Nathkatba.. There is no material on record to satisfy this Court if Anandi Singh 2 was one of the unknown persons referred to in Section- 164 Cr.P.C. statement. This Court finds it difficult to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner on principles of consistency. It does not appear that the attention of the Court was adequately invited to the Section-164 Cr.P.C. statement that the named accused therein were accompanied by 30 to 35 unnamed persons when this Court granted anticipatory bail to Anandi Singh only on the premise that he was not one of the 7 persons named in Section-164 Cr.P.C. statement. The application is rejected. Any application for regular bail on behalf of the petitioner shall be considered by the court below on its own merits, without being prejudiced by the present order of rejection. KC ( Navin Sinha, J.)