IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.15586 of 2008 MANOJ BABU @ LAILA RAJAK Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 2 7.5.2008 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also learned A.P.P. for the State. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Naya Ram Nagar P.S.Case No.105 of 2006 registered under Sections 324,307/34 I.P.C. and 27 of the Arms Act and has prayed for anticipatory bail. The grievance of the petitioner is that although the F.I.R. was registered against unknown persons which was only on the basis of the statement of the informant recorded after 10 months of the occurrence under Section-164 Cr.P.C.in which he has divulged the name of the petitioner and his accomplices. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that in the said statement no overt act has been alleged against the petitioner except of assaulting the informant with slaps and fists which at best makes out a case under Section-323 I.P.C. The fact that the statement under Section-164 Cr.P.C. was recorded after 10 months does not give any benefit to the petitioner since it is only when the Police produces the witness before the Magistrate with a request to record his statement under Section-164 Cr.P.C. that the Magistrate records his statement. Even otherwise from the order dated 5.3.2008 of the Sessions Judge rejecting the - 2 - prayer of the petitioner for anticipatory bail in A.B.A.No.663 of 2007 it appears that the injured in his statement at paragraph-71 of the Case diary had named the petitioner as one of the assailants and this was further confirmed by statement under Section-164 Cr.P.C. which finds place at paragraph-126 of the Case diary . In the aforesaid circumstances, I am not inclined the extend the benefit of Section-438 Cr.P.C. to the petitioner . His prayer for anticipatory bail is, accordingly, rejected. ( Abhijit Sinha, J ) NKS/-