Judgment 1. These two original criminal miscelleneous cases are dealt with together and this judgment will govern both of them. 2. It appears that the learned Sessions Judge of Darbhanga in Bail Petition No. 141 of 1965, by his order dated 6.5.65 ordered the release of Bhubneshwar Singh and Bamkhelawan Singh on furnishing bail bonds and certain sureties. By the aforesaid order the learned Judge directed that the Magistrate should verify the bail bonds "without delay" and the words "without delay" were underlined with red ink obviously with a view to emphasise the urgency of it. The order of the learned Sessions Judge was received on 7.5.65, by the Magistrate, Sri S. M. Singh, who was acting that day for the Sub-divisional Magistrate. Sri S. M. Singh, on the same day, directed another Magistrate, Sri R. K. Singh, to verify the bail bonds and send the report immediately. But, Sri R. K. Singh received the order of Sri S. M. Singh on 9-5-65 and submitted his report about the verification of the bail bonds on 16-5-65. 3. In another bail bond petition no. 151 of 1965, by his order dated 8-5-65, the learned Sessions Judge ordered the release of Brajendra Narain Choudhary on his furnishing bail bond and the Sessions Judge directed that the bail bond must be verified without the least delay. The words "without the least delay" in the order of the learned Sessions Judge were underlined with red ink obviously with a view to emphasise the urgency of it. The order of the learned Sessions Judge was received on 10-5-65 by a Magistrate, Sri B. P. Mahto, who was acting for the Sub-divisional Magistrate that day. Sri B. P. Mahto passed an order that the bail bond furnished by Brajendra Narain Choudhary be sent to the same Magistrate, Sri R. K. Singh, for verification and report. It appears, however, that Brajendra Narain Choudhary had filed bail bonds with affidavits praying that as provided under sub-section (3) of sec. 499 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the bailors and sureties should be administered oath regarding the sufficiency of the sureties. The learned Magistrate, Sri B. P. Mahto, however, passed no order on this prayer regarding the testing of the sufficiency of the sureties by administering oath to the sureties and instead remanded Brajendra Narain Choudhary to custody. 499 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the bailors and sureties should be administered oath regarding the sufficiency of the sureties. The learned Magistrate, Sri B. P. Mahto, however, passed no order on this prayer regarding the testing of the sufficiency of the sureties by administering oath to the sureties and instead remanded Brajendra Narain Choudhary to custody. The latter, however, furnished the amount of bail bond in cash and was ultimately released on the same day. 4. It was on the petition of Brajendra Narain Chaudhary that a rule was issued against Sri S. M. Singh and Sri B. P. Mahto for an action in contempt of the order of the learned Magistrate (Sessions Judge?) in Original Criminal Miscellaneous Case No. 8 of 1966. Another rule in Original Criminal Miscellaneous Case No. 15 of 1966 was issued by me after going through the records on 18-4-66 against Sri R. K. Singh for action against him also in contempt for disregarding the order of the learned Sessions Judge. 5. The three Magistrates have since filed their show cause petitions and they appeared in person also on 29-7-66. 6. The explanation of Sri S. M. Singh is that he was busy doing Sawalkhani work when the order of the learned Sessions Judge was received. He, therefore, on the same day, sent it to Sri R. K. Singh for verification and that he had no intention to flout the order of the learned Sessions Judge. 7. The explanation of Sri R. K. Singh, is that he received the direction of Sri S. M. Singh for the verification of the bail bonds and sureties on 9-5-65. But on that day there was an urgent meeting of the Magistrates for their deputation on Muharram duty and that ever since 9-5-65, Sri R. K. Singh remained busy with Muharram duty till 15-5-65. It was after he became free from Muharram duty that he verified the sureties and submitted his report on 16-5-65 recommending that the sureties were sufficient. 8. It was after he became free from Muharram duty that he verified the sureties and submitted his report on 16-5-65 recommending that the sureties were sufficient. 8. The explanation of Sri B. P. Mahto is that on the relevant date, when the order of the learned Sessions Judge was received by him, he was busy doing Sawalkhani work and because there was no specific order of the learned Sessions Judge that he should personally verify the bail bond, he referred it to Sri R. K. Singh for verification and that pending the report, Brajendra Narain Choudhary was remanded to Jail custody. Since, however, he furnished the amount of bail bond in cash, he was released from custody. 9. Before commenting on the explanations of these three Magistrates, I should draw their attention to the provisions of sub-s. (3) of S. 499 of the Criminal P. C., which runs thus: "For the purpose of determining whether the sureties are sufficient, the Court may, if it so thinks fit, accept affidavits in proof of the facts contained therein relating to the sufficiency of the sureties or may make such further enquiry as it deems fit." I must presume that the learned Magistrates were aware of this provision. On the question of liberty of a person, the learned Magistrates should not have shirked their responsibilities by adopting obviously delaying tactics. Sri S. M. Singh may have something to say, namely, that he was busy doing Sawalkhani work and was not aware of the specific provisions of sub-s. (3) of S. 499 of the Criminal P. C., but, Sri B. P. Mahto can plead no justification when the petitioner before him, Brajendra Narain Choudhary, had specifically requested him by filing affidavit to administer oath to the sureties. Administering of oath should not have taken long time. Both the Magistrates should have realised that the order of the learned Sessions Judge in each case was to verify the sureties without any delay and the learned Sessions Judge, as already indicated, had underlined the necessary words with red ink. 10 Shri R. K. Singh seems to be the worst offender although he says that he had not before him the order of the Sessions Judge. 10 Shri R. K. Singh seems to be the worst offender although he says that he had not before him the order of the Sessions Judge. He should have realised that it was an important matter and if he was busy otherwise he should have sent back the bail bonds to the Sub-divisional Magistrate for getting them verified by some other Magistrate. It is also not satisfactorily explained why the order of Sri S. M. Singh directing Sri R. K. Singh to verify the bail bonds took two days in reaching the office of Sri R. K. Singh which presumably must be in the same building. 11. Looking at the way in which the bail bonds have been treated in respect of the two orders of the learned Sessions Judge, referred to above, it gives an impression that these three learned Magistrates some how wanted to delay the release of the persons involved. The Magistrates should be conscious of their heavy responsibilities and should not act in a manner prejudicial to the litigants. They should have realised that these persons had to remain in jail custody for the delay made in testing the sureties. One of them, Sri Brajendra Narain Choudhary, had to furnish cash money finding himself in jail custody. The three Magistrates, however, tendered unqualified apology saying that they had absolutely no intention to disregard and flout the order of the learned Sessions Judge. I have accepted their apology in the hope that in future, they would exhibit better sense of responsibility. 12. In the result, the rules are discharged with the observations made above.