IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.13665 of 2009 1. Navindra Jha, son of Late Nagad Lal Jha @ Godan Jha. 2. Baban Jha @ Shivendra Jha, son of Navendra Jha, both resident of Village-Malhad, P.S. and District-Supaul …..Petitioners. Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. The Officer-in-Charge, Supaul Police Station, District- Supaul. 3. Amarnath Choudhary, son of Late Badri Choudhary, resident of Village- Malhad, P.S. and District- Supaul. ….Opposite Parties. For the petitioners :- Mr. Subodh Kr. Jha, Advocate. Mr. Bidhan Chandra Jha, Advocate. Mr. Jitendra Kumar Pandey, advocate. For the State :- Mr. R. B. S. Pahepuri, A.P.P. ----------- 4. 27. 01. 2011. Heard. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed against the order dated 23. 01. 2009 passed in Criminal Revision No. 96/08 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C. No. 4, Supaul, confirming the order dated 12. 03. 2008 passed in Supaul P.S. Case No. 56 of 2008,by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Supaul, by which the petitioners have illegally remanded in the jail custody for offences under Sections 341, 323, 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that all the Sections are bailable. When the petitioners were presented before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, the Chief Judicial Magistrate granted bail on condition of executing bail bond of Rs. 3,000/- of like amount with two sureties. However, it is asserted 2 that bail bond of one of the accused person was accepted but bail bonds of rest two accused persons including the petitioner were rejected on the ground that it is not satisfactory. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners however, raised grievance there is not mentioned in order sheet while rejecting the bail bond that on what ground the bail bonds were rejected and has also raised grievance accused person including the petitioner may have been enlarged on bail on furnishing personal bond as offence was bailable. The petitioner has been put to adverse situation as petitioners are Government servant. It has been assumed that since the Bench Clerk, namely, Sarvesh Jha was relation of the informant, namely, Amar Nath Chaudhary and he is in collusion with informant and was instrumental in sending the accused in jail by getting the bail bond rejected and for that petitioner had also filed a petition before the District & Sessions Judge on 29. 03. 2008 which is annexure- 3 to this petition for taking action against the Bench Clerk, but in vain. 4. Having regard to the fact that petitioners were arrested and presented before the Chief Judicial Magistrate. Bail granted and bail bond filed was cancelled without mentioning the grounds for rejecting the bail bond and even no opportunity was given to 3 release the petitioner on personal bond when the petitioners were Government servant and this was in collusion as Bench Clerk is relation of the informant who in evil design did the Chief Judicial Magistrate remanded to jail custody. However, the Chief Judicial Magistrate may have also released the petitioners on furnishing personal bond. 5. However, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any merit in this petition. However, grievance of the petitioners in his apprehension that Bench Clerk was instrumental by which petitioners remanded in jail custody and his petition Annexure-3 not considered by the District Judge and for which a petition was filed before the District Judge to enquire into the matter with regard to the allegation. 6. Hence, District Judge is directed to look into the grievance of the petitioners in administrative side regarding allegation made by the petitioners against the Bench Clerk and after due enquiry shall consider the matter in accordance with law. 7. With the above observations/directions, the criminal miscellaneous petition is disposed of. m.p. ( Gopal Prasad J.)