IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.45992 of 2008 1. RANDHIR KUMAR 2. Sheo Sharan Yadav 3. Karu Yadav 4. Ramdeo Yadav … … Petitioners Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR … … Opp. Party For the petitioners: Shri S.K.Yadav For the State:Shri Dashrath Mehta, APP ----------- 2. 18.12.2008 Heard. In a case in which the only non- bailable offence is Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code and for that there is no allegation against any one, an officer, who is the Sessions Judge of the Sessions Division, has dismissed the prayer for bail. The learned Judge appears correctly reiterating the position of law that mere mention of section in the F.I.R. may not be the hallmark for refusing or allowing the prayer for bail, the fact of the case and the injury, if there could be any, those also have to be considered. But, in spite of that, the learned Judge appears not pointing out to this Court by mentioning in his rejection order as to what was the injury which could have been so serious so as to persuading him 2 to pass an order of rejection on a petition for bail in which none of the four petitioners was said to have assaulted Sidheshwar Yadav, the father of the informant. The learned Judge has discussed that the said Sidheshwar Yadav had serious injury, but again missed to record that he had been assaulted by Raghunandan Yadav and by none of the four petitioners. If the learned Judge was hellbent not to grant bail, then this Court could be finding it very difficult in not only sustaining such orders but also pondering over the situation so as to directing entry of some adverse remarks in the record of a particular Officer specially when such blatant and illegal orders, which have nothing to do with the facts of the case, are passed. I am inclined to communicate the order of this Court to the Sessions Judge by whom the order of rejection has been passed. Let the petitioners namely, Randhir Kumar, Sheo Sharan Yadav, Karu Yadav and Ramdeo Yadav be released on their furnishing bonds each of Rs. 1000/-( one thousand) with 3 one surety each to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jehanabad, in Makhdumpur P..Case No. 220 of 2008. Kanth ( Dharnidhar Jha, J.)