JUDGMENT : Dr. D.P. Choudhuty, J. - This is an application under section 438 Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioners for grant of anticipatory bail in G.R. Case No. 227 of 2014 corresponding to Fategarh P.S. Case No. 154 of 2014 pending in the court of learned J.M.F.C., Khandapara for commission of offences punishable under sections 294/323/324/34 of I.P.C. 2. The case of the prosecution in short is that on 26.6.2014 at about 6.00 P.M., petitioners called the informant to village Danda and took him to the back side of the house. There they abused in obscene language after which the elder brother of informant reached there. It is alleged inter alia that the petitioners also assaulted the informant by lathi. Petitioner no.1 put a knife on the neck of the informant and petitioner no.2 bite the back of the informant causing bleeding injury on his person. Hearing his cry, witnesses came to his rescue. Thereafter F.I.R. was lodged, investigation went ahead. Case under aforesaid sections is registered against the petitioners. Petitioners apprehend arrest in view of the F.I.R. lodged against them. 3. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that the offences alleged are minor in nature and there is previous enmity between the parties for which a lenient view may kindly be taken to release the petitioners on anticipatory bail. 4. Learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the State submitted that as the offences are bailable in nature, the provisions under section 438 Cr.P.C. do not apply to the case of the petitioners. Therefore, he submitted to reject the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that the offence under section 324 I.P.C. is non-bailable in nature in view of the amendment of Cr.P.C. in 2005 for which necessary order may be passed to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioners. 6. No doubt provisions under section 438 Cr.P.C. apply to the non-bailable offences. On the other hand the person being accused of non-bailable offence, can move the anticipatory bail. The offences under sections 294/323 I.P.C. are undoubtedly bailable in nature. So far as the offence under section 324 I.P.C. is concerned, it is bailable in nature. By virtue of amendment of Cr.P.C. in 2005, it became non-bailable in nature. But the notification for amendment has not been given effect to as submitted by learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State. So far as the offence under section 324 I.P.C. is concerned, it is bailable in nature. By virtue of amendment of Cr.P.C. in 2005, it became non-bailable in nature. But the notification for amendment has not been given effect to as submitted by learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State. In this regard this Court in the case of Janmejaya Sahu and others v. State of Orissa, reported in (2015) 60 OCR 577 discussed all the relevant notifications and finally His Lordship has been pleased to observe that the nature of offence under section 324 I.P.C. being unamended due to notification in this regard having not come into force so far, continued as bailable offence in the text book. 7. Since all the offences including the offence under sections 324/34, I.P.C. as alleged against the petitioners are bailable in nature, the petition under section 438 Cr.P.C. is not maintainable. Therefore, I am not inclined to release the petitioners on anticipatory bail. Accordingly the ABLAPL is dismissed as not maintainable. Final Result : Dismissed