IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.31745 of 2008 PANKAJ KUMAR Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 2. 21.8.2008 Heard. Poor knowledge of the law could be the only comment of this Court on the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. Treating the allegation as true on their face value, it could never make out a case under Section 392 IPC inasmuch as the allegation is that five persons riding motorcycles came and stopped the bus, assaulted the driver and asked him not to ply the bus unless an amount of Rs.10,00000/- was paid to them. The learned Judge who passed the order in B.P.No.701 of 2008/250 of 2008 on 3.7.2008 could at least have consulted the definition of theft when it is robbery under Section 390 of the IPC. Rejection for rejection sake could never be approved by any court, at least by this court. Considering the poor knowledge of law of the Judge as also considering the wrong application of his discretion in rejecting a proper and valid petition this matter requires to be placed before the Hon’ble Inspecting Judge - 2 - of Nawada Judgeship for evaluating the conduct and act of the officer who is posted there as Additional Sessions Judge-I. Coming to the defence taken in the case, the submission is that the police officers were wanting the petitioner to take them to a particular place by his motorcycle. The petitioner not being agreeable, was taken into custody, was badly assaulted and his motorcycle was seized and thereafter the petitioner was remanded by obtaining a false report. I believe if this could not be a case for granting bail then none could be. Let the above named petitioner be released from custody on furnishing P.R. bond of Rs.500/-(five hundred)only without any surety to the satisfaction of C.J.M. Nawada in Pakri Barwan P.S.Case no.44 of 2008. B.Kr. ( Dharnidhar Jha, J. )