IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.33192 of 2009 PINTU TANTI @ PINTU KUMAR Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 3. 28.10.2009 Heard. The rejection order contains a submission on behalf of the Additional Public Prosecutor that confessional statement of co- accused Manoj Paswan led to recovery of theft properties. This fact was denied by the petitioner by making a definite statement in paragraph 9 of this petition and, as such, the Court was forced to call for the case diary. The carbon copy of the case diary up to 12.8.2009 is available to the Court and I have perused the same. There is absolutely no statement of Manoj Paswan by way of his confessional statement recorded in the case diary. It is unfortunate and clearly an example of abdication of judicial duty of a Judge that the lower court did not look to the case diary so as to ascertaining the contention of the A.P.P. and went on to 2 reject the prayer for bail. Let an explanation be sought from the Judge concerned and put up the matter for consideration before the Hon’ble Inspecting Judge of the Judgeship of Munger. The Judges could not refuse prayer for bail on baseless and unavailable grounds. As regards the prayer for bail, let the petitioner, namely, Pintu Tanti alias Pintu Kumar be released from custody on his furnishing a personal recognizance bond of Rs. 500/- ( five hundred) only without any surety to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Munger, in Kasim Bazar P.S.Case No. 83 of 2009. Kanth ( Dharnidhar Jha, J.)