IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.42257 of 2009 LAL MOHAN, son of Deo Nath Rai, resident of village Haridaspur (Patthar Ghat), P.S. Patori, District Samastipur Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 2. 7.12.2009 Heard counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the State. The petitioner faces prosecution for offence u/ss 364, 302, 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code and has a defence that the F.I.R. in question would be hit by the provisions of section 162 Cr.P.C., inasmuch as for the same offence an earlier F.I.R. had already been recorded at Barh Police Station on 9.7.2009 itself. Counsel in fact would submit that if the case diary of both the cases is called for it can be safely found that there is hardly any material against the petitioner so as to keep him in custody in connection with the aforementioned subsequently recorded F.I.R. While it would be too early and in fact premature to come to any final conclusion on the aforementioned submission as to whether it was a continuing offence and thus, either of the police station had the jurisdiction to continue with the case, 2 this much becomes evident from the reading of the impugned order that the petitioner had moved for bail before the Sessions court at a time when the investigation was still going on and therefore, the materials which have been collected against the petitioner have not been looked into. That being the position when the counsel also wants the case diary to be perused, it would be better that such exercise in the first instance should be done by the court below, the Sessions court, which would be in a better position to get the case diary perused and find out the materials against the petitioner. In that view of the matter, this application is dismissed and the petitioner is given liberty to once again move the Sessions court which would now decide the matter without being prejudiced by the dismissal of this application at this stage. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/ 3