ORDER : 1. Heard Mr. T. Gyadi, learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Mr. T. Ete, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent. 2. Apprehending arrest in connection with Naharlagun P.S. Case No. 32/2022, under Sections 448/324 of the Indian Penal Code, this application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is preferred by accused, namely, Smti Pimak Mangkia Gollo, for grant of pre-arrest bail. 3. It is to be mentioned here that Naharlagun P.S. Case No. 32/2022, under Sections 448/324 of the Indian Penal Code, has been registered on the basis of one F.I.R., lodged by one Smti Ammi Gollo on 30.03.2022, to the effect that on 30.03.2022, at about 1330 hours, Ms. Pimak Mangkia entered into her rented house at A Sector and lock the door by hook and started altercation with her and she took out one knife from her body and started to stab on her forehead, hand and other parts of her body and injured her seriously. 4. On the basis of the aforesaid F.I.R. the Officer-In-Charge, Naharlagun Police Station, registered the case under Sections 448/324 of the Indian Penal Code. 5. It is to be noted here that vide order dated 23.06.2022, this Court has directed the learned counsel for the applicant as well as the learned Additional Public Prosecutor to come prepare to address the Court on the specific issue as to whether Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code is a bailable or a non-bailable offence. 6. Pursuant to the aforesaid direction, Mr. T. Ete, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, has produced one Notification, dated 31.06.2006, before this Court, wherein, it is stated that “in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (2) of Section 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2005 (No. 25 of 2005), the Central Government hereby appoints that 23rd June, 2006, as the date on which the provisions of the said Act, except the provisions of Sections 16,25, 28(a), 28(b), 38, 42(a), 42(b) 42(f) (iii) and (iv) and 44(a), shall come into force.” 7. Referring to the aforesaid Notification, Mr. Referring to the aforesaid Notification, Mr. T. Ete, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, submits that Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code has been made non-bailable vide Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2005, No. 25 of 2005 in Section 42(f)(iii), has not been notified yet and as such, the offence under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code is still continuing to be bailable offence and as such, the present petition is not maintainable and therefore, it is contended to dismiss the same. 8. On the other hand, Mr. T. Gyadi, learned counsel for the applicant, referring to a judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur vs. Akashdeep Morya, 2021 (0) Supreme (SC) 1000, submits that Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code is a non-bailable offence and as such, the petition is maintainable. 9. Considering the submissions of learned Advocates of both sides, I have carefully gone through the petition and the documents placed on record and also the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2005 No. 25 of 2005 and also the Notification dated 21.06.2006. 10. It appears that though some of the provision of the aforesaid Amendment Act, 2005, No. 25 of 2005 has come into force with effect from 21.06.2006, yet no date has been appointed for coming into force of Section 42(f)(iii). Though Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed in the case of Akashdeep Morya (supra) the offence under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code as non-bailable, yet the same cannot be read as a precedent. A decision is only an authority for what it actually decides. What is of the essence in a decision is its ratio not every observation found therein nor what logically follows from the various observations made in it. [See: State of Orissa vs. Sudhansu Sekhar Mishra and Others AIR 1968 SC 647 ] 11. In view of above, Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code is still continuing to be bailable offence and as such, to the considered view of this Court, this Anticipatory Bail Application, under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is not maintainable, and accordingly, the same stands dismissed. 12. However, the petitioner is directed to appear before the learned Court below and to apply for regular bail and in such event, the learned Court below shall consider the same in accordance with law. 13. 12. However, the petitioner is directed to appear before the learned Court below and to apply for regular bail and in such event, the learned Court below shall consider the same in accordance with law. 13. In terms of above, this Anticipatory Bail Application stands disposed of.