IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.33097 of 2010 UMESH PASWAN & ANR Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 3. 12 .10.2010 This modification petition has been filed again after dismissal of another modification petition; vide Cr. Misc. No.30418 of 2010, on 18.8.2010. The two modification petitions appear filed seeking the modification of certain observations of the Court while passing order dated 20.11.2009 in Cr. Misc. No. 41337 of 2009 in the following terms: “The Sessions Judge, Nalanda who was holding the Circuit Court in Hilsa has by a far fetched reasoning and by wrong recording of facts has stated that the allegation was also against the petitioners of setting fire to the Dalan of the informant. If this is how the prayer for bail is rejected then that could be reflecting not only the mind set of a Judge but may also be indicative of the fact that the Judge was not honest and courageous to pass appropriate and correct orders. The petitioners, as may appear from the very rejection order do not specially bear any allegation of assaulting the injured or of committing theft or arson. Let a copy of this order be placed before the Hon‟ble the Inspecting Judge of the Judgeship of Nalanda Judgeship along with the present case record for his Lordship‟s evaluation and further action as could be deemed proper, specially, on impressing upon the Officer need of exercising one‟s jurisdiction properly.” The contents of the modification petition read that the petitioner, who is none else than the District and Sessions Judge, Nalanda at Biharsharif himself, after having received the above order felt condemned by this Court in the eyes of his Sub- ordinates as also in the eyes of general public. It was further contended, as may appear from paragraph 8 of the petition, that 2 he was trying to discharge his duties to the best of his abilities and capacities and still sometimes likely to err as “a Judge who has not committed an error is yet to be born.” The petitioner, thereafter, went on to scan the allegation against the accused persons and further contended that he was apologizing for mistake committed during course of discharging his judicial business and assured the Court that he will not fall in the same error. I have perused the order passed by me on 20.11.2009. The observations which have been extracted above were made in an experience of pain on account of the prayer for bail of petitioners Umesh Paswan and Dinesh Paswan had arbitrarily and illegally been refused in bailable offence, i.e., under Section 435 of the I.P.C. The learned Judge has tried to justify his order by pointing out that charge sheet had been submitted in the case by the police but he has still not pointed out that the police had altered the section of offence from 435 I.P.C. to 436 I.P.C. Moreover, his own reproduction of facts of the case in paragraphs 4,5,6 and others of the petition does not indicate that the two petitioners before this Court, i.e., Umesh Paswan and Dinesh Paswan had ever been alleged with commission of an act in the F.I.R. of setting fire to the house. This is clearly an arbitrary order which indicated not only the mind set of the learned Judge who was passing that particular order dated 11.9.2009 in B.P. No. 212 of 2009 but also the trend of passing 3 illegal order in the whole of the lower judiciary. I was simply making observations in my order dated 20.11.2009 that it was a sad development and indicated that the Officer was not honest and courageous in passing the appropriate and correct orders. When I was speaking of a Judge being not „honest‟, it was not about the integrity of the Judge but his honesty in recording the facts correctly and then considering the prayer. One may not be dishonest but if he is not recording the correct facts and not applying the laws appropriately, then also in spite of not being dishonest one may not be said to be honest. This was the reason for my recommendation to the Hon‟ble Inspecting Judge of the Judgeship of Nalanda at Biharsharif to impress upon the Officer the need of proper application of one‟s jurisdiction. How could it affect the career of an Officer could not be appreciated by me as was contended before me. If this could be the quality of the Officer as regards the mind set then how he could be concerned about his career as he could never be said to be concerned about the plight of the accused who is kept languishing in prison after being handed out an incorrect and arbitrary order rejecting the prayer for bail. One thing which further could not be appreciated was that the Officer has been obstinate and repetitive in filing petitions for modification which have wasted the precious time of the Court for any valid reason in that behalf. The Order which is sought to be modified was simply recommendatory in 4 character suggestive in content, it was never meant to seek any disciplinary action against him. Even if it could have been on that side of the thought of the Officer, he had the occasion of placing his case before the Hon‟ble Inspecting Judge. But he has filed a petition on judicial side of the Court indicating his complete lack of confidence in the impartiality and benevolence of the Hon‟ble Inspecting Judge. It is too serious a matter to be countenanced. It requires examination by the Court. Let the Registrar General place it accordingly. With the above observation the modification petition is disposed of. Kanth ( Dharnidhar Jha, J.)