IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.53023 of 2008 DIPAK PASWAN @ DIPAK KUMAR PASWAN, son of Binod Paswan, resident of village – Gariwan Tola, Old Cinema Hall Gulabbagh, PS. Sadar, District - Purnea Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 2/ 02.02.2009 Heard. The case has been registered under sections 461 and 379 of the I.P.C. Petitioner is not named in the FIR nor anything has been recovered from his possession. His confession which is urged to be a creation of the police, was as to justifying the arrest of the petitioner and remand in the case is the material upon which prayer for bail of the petitioner has been dismissed. What is worse is that at the time of dismissing the prayer for bail, the officer passing the order has observed that the petitioner is a habitual offender. It was desirable that the officer ought to have consulted the definition of habitual offender in Bihar Control of Crimes Act and then should have utilized this term for describing the petitioner. The term is not defined in the Indian Penal Code or the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is defined in the above noted special Act. The Judges should restrain themselves in using the terms which could not have any application in the facts of a particular case because that could indicate that they are over enthusiastic in passing the order without any foundation. I am rather shocked to find the quality of order passed by the Judge and as such I am required to communicate to the Registry of the court to send a copy of this order to the Judge concerned who was acting as Vacation Judge on - 2 - 13.10.2008 so that the officer improves upon his judicial output. As regards the prayer for bail, let the petitioner above named be released on bail on furnishing persona recognition bond of Rs.5000/(five thousand) without any surety to the satisfaction of C.J.M. Purnea in Purnea Sadar P.S. Case no. 100 of 2008. Anil/ (Dharnidhar Jha, J.)