IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.22489 of 2009 1. MD.SOHRAB ALI 2. MD. JUBER @ AHMED Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 02 11.09.2009 Heard both sides. It is submitted that petitioner no.2, namely, Md. Juber @ Ahmed has been arrested, and as such, the application, as against him, has become infructuous. While pressing this application for anticipatory bail, learned counsel for the petitioner, with reference to the averments made in paragraph nos. 5 and 6 of the bail application, submits that part of the allegation constituting offence under Section 386 has been disbelieved by the Investigating Authority. In paragraph nos.5 and 6 the following facts have been disclosed:- “5) That the case was investigated by the Investigating Officer of the case and also supervised by the Section Officer of the Police and found that the Section 386 is not made out and directed to Investigating Officer that it is the only case under Section 384, 323, 504 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code are made out. 6) That all the sections are bail-able accept of Section 384 of the Indian Penal Code and the same is also tried by the learned Magistrate.” If that be the case, the best course for the petitioner no.1, namely, Md. Sohrab Ali would be to surrender and apply for regular bail. The court below shall consider all aspects of the matter including the conclusion of the Investigating Authority and pass appropriate order in accordance with law. 2 Let it be recorded that this court has not adjudged the merit of the case. Petitioner may get this order transmitted through FAX on depositing appropriate fees. Sym/ (Kishore K. Mandal, J.)