IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.28259 of 2008 MD.NASIM Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 3. 20.8.2008 Heard. The court is not satisfied with the explanation submitted by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Patna City who appears obstructing the release of the petitioner on an extremely technical ground which could not be the real reasons for withholding a man ordered to be released from custody. The Assistant Sessions Judge has not disputed that the police station case number was correctly mentioned in this court’s order dated 17.12.2007 passed in Cr.Misc.Petition No.20275 of 2007. He could not have any confusion, as he has claimed, that the accused could be in custody in other case registered by the same police station if the case number is correctly mentioned. I am of the opinion that the officer has invented a ploy and attempted to justify his act of illegally detaining a person. The statements of the modification petition made therein have been supported by affidavit and it was clearly stated by the learned counsel that the Judge refused releasing the accused in spite of an order to that effect from this court merely because there was an error in the no. of Sessions Trial though the police station case was correctly mentioned in that order of bail. This requires examination by the Hon’ble Inspecting Judge of Patna Judgeship for taking proper action against the officer. Let this matter be placed before His Lordship. B.Kr. ( Dharnidhar Jha, J. )