IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.10974 of 2011 Akhilesh Thakur Versus The State Of Bihar ----------- 5/ 27.7.2011 Regard being had to the seriousness of the allegation and considering further the submissions of both sides that the prosecution has now concluded its evidence and the case is pending only for hearing arguments, the Court does not feel inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. Prayer for bail is rejected. Heard Shri Parmeshwar Mehta, learned counsel on the cause shown by the Superintendent of Police, Vaishali pursuant to this Court’s order dated 22.6.2011. The officer has tendered unqualified apology and also submitted in his replies to the notice issued against him that he could not understand the implications of his acts and he was simply moved by the advice of the counsel, who had drafted that particular letter, which was directly addressed to me. He has further averred, as may appear from paragraph 5 of the replies that he had neither indulged in the act in order to undermine the Court nor he was violating the court’s order intentionally. It was on account of the wrong interpretation that he had fallen in error. He had undertaken to obey the orders of this Court and has regretted that his replies could not be as per the rules framed by this Court on filing of such show cause applications and he has tendered unconditional apology for the same. 2 At the same time, perused the report of the Registrar General. The Registrar General has submitted that the office note, by which the earlier reply of the Superintendent of Police, which was addressed to the Judge of this Court, which was placed into the bench, was indeed an act which could be sufficient for initiating any action against the Assistant or persons who were associated in giving that particular note dated 18.5.2011, was undermining the practice of the Court and rules in that behalf that the replies, if any, had to be addressed to an officer of the Registry, who could be placing the reply properly before the bench. This aspect of the matter was undergone by the Registrar General as he was noting that the aforesaid mistake occurred due to lack of proper training to the employees concerned. The Court may accept the view of the Registrar General that it was on account of lack of training of the employees of the court who are falling in error but that could be confined in a case of Assistant only but when the indulgence of an employee of the rank of Section Officer is concerned, it could not be acceptable to me at least because, a Section Officer is supposed to be quite seasoned employee who could have imbibed the spirits of the rules and could have adopted the practice which have been laid down by the rules of the court and formulating such reply and placed the same before the bench of the court. The employees who have been named by the 3 Registrar General in his report, as such, appear simply escaping the responsibility of acting with responsibility and a sense of duty. They are warned on that account to be cautious else, on the next occasion, it may not be so easy for them to escape a harsher order from this Court. The Registrar General shall communicate the person concerned the relevant part of the order. Anil/ ( Dharnidhar Jha, J.)