IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.31084 of 2009 SATYENDRA YADAV Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 3/ 9.12.2009 Heard. Under one year in custody and the petitioner is in hurry to come out after having given a blow causing injury as dangerous as indicated by its dimensions of 3 ½” x 4” muscle deep. The blow had caused fractures of both parietal bones, frontal bone, hyper dense lesion in left parietal lobe and mixed density lesion in right fronto parietal lobe and considering that, the court is not inclined to direct release of the petitioner on bail. Renewal prayer is dismissed. However, as soon as the informant is examined in the case, the petitioner may renew his prayer for bail. The report which was sought for from the District and Sessions Judge, Nawada has been received indicating as to who were the officers who did not take cognizance in spite of the fact that charge sheet was submitted in the case quite in time. One officer sat over the charge sheet for four months and passed on the baton to his successor in office who also followed suit and this continued till four officers had demitted office of the Chief Judicial Magistrate. If this could not be serious enough to be taken note of by the administrative side of this court, then I do not think any thing else could be more serious, because the officers undermined the illegality creeping in the proceeding to passing remand orders repeatedly without taking cognizance. Besides, it appears a case of - 2 - dereliction of duty also. Let the Registrar General place the report of the District and Sessions Judge, Nawada before Hon’ble the Chief Justice for appreciation and necessary action. Anil/ (Dharnidhar Jha, J.)