Judgment R.C.P.SINHA, J. 1. Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as State in detail. 2. The petitioner along with Ram Deo Gosai had filed bail application on 2-9-1983, which was dismissed on 5-9-1983 without calling for the case diary. The order of dismissal was qualified by the word "at this stage. The petitioner had again filed another bail application before this court on 7-3-1984, which was numbered as Cr. Misc. No. 2259, of 1984 in which case diary was called for and the bail application was disposed of on the 30th March, 1984. Inview of the statement made by Mr. Braj Kishore Prasad No. 2, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that other accused persons having similar allegation have been granted bail by the Court of Sessions, the application was dismissed as withdrawn with an observation that the Sessions Judge would consider this aspect also while disposing of the bail application of the petitioner if filed befor him. 3. Thereafter, the bail application filed before the learned Sessions Judge was dismissed by order dated 13th of Febuary, 1984. While refusing the prayer of bail of the petitioner he has stated that he has hot grantted bail to any of the accused persons against whom specific allegation of assault was in the F. I. R. Mr. Braj Kishore Prasad No. 2, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that no doubt there is specific allegation against the petitioner that he was cutting the neck of the deceased with Chhura, but none of the witnesses examined during the course of investigation before the Investigating Officer, has stated that the petitioner was cutting the neck of the deceased with Chhura. He has also submitted that several witnesses including the widow of the deceased have not named the petitioner at all. He has also submitted that the several F. I. R. witnesses have stated during the course of investigation before the Investigating Officer that the neck of the deceased was being cut by Raj Kishore, Kailash and Bhutta Das and that Kailash and Bhutta Das have been granted bail by the learned Sessions Judge. He has shown the certified copy of the order dated 25-7-1983, which shows that Kailash and Bhutta Das were granted bail by Mr. He has shown the certified copy of the order dated 25-7-1983, which shows that Kailash and Bhutta Das were granted bail by Mr. V. N. Trivedi, the learned Sessions Judge mainly on the ground that according to the F. I. R. there was no specific allegation of assault against Kailash and Bhutta Das. 4. The learned Sessions Judge, while disposing of the bail application, has not taken the trouble of looking into the case diary, which shows that several witnesses have stated that Raj Kishore, Kailash and Bhutta Das were Cutting the neck of the deceased. While disposing of the bail application of the petitioner by order dated 30th of April, 1984, the learned Sessions Judge has also not taken the trouble of considering this aspect of the case that the several witnesses have not named the petitionor at all even as the member of the mob and none of the witnesses has attributed any specific allegation of assault to the petitioner. He has mentioned in the order "experience shows that such statements are recorded in the case diary by the Investigating Officer with a view to make the allegation less serious against a particular accused extraneous consideration" although there was no material before him to make an observation like this. The learned Sessions Judge should have confined himself to the material on the record of the case and should not have roamed in the realm of imagination and dwelt in dream land. 5. On perusal of the supervision note of the Dy. S. P. it appears that none of the witnesses except Bharat Tiwary has made any specific allegation of assault against the petitioner before the aforesaid supervising authority. 6. The learned Sessions Judge has unnecessarily made some remarks against Mr. Braj Kishore Prasad No. 2, who had appeared on behalf of the petitioner in Cr. Misc. No. 2259/84, which he should have avoided. The court should generally avoid passing remark against the counsel appearing on behalf of any of the parties unless it is absolutely necessary to do so in the interest of Justice. In this case, he could have disposed of the bail application without making any remarks against any body. 7. The learned Sessions Judge has wasted his valuable time in unnecessarily writing a long order in this case. In this case, he could have disposed of the bail application without making any remarks against any body. 7. The learned Sessions Judge has wasted his valuable time in unnecessarily writing a long order in this case. The bail application of the petitioner should have been disposed of by writing a short order, i. e, by merely stating that allegation against the petitioner is not similar to that of the persons who were granted bail by him. He has introduced many irrelevant matters in the order, which were not at all necessary to mention therein He unnecessarily became sensitive and sentimental while hearing and disposing of the bail application of the petitioner. It does not behave of a senior and ex-perienced Sessions Judge like him, I hope, in future, he will be cautious, precise and concise in passing and writing orders. 8. All aspects of the case will be filly examined during the course of of trial. la view of the fact that the allegation in the F. I. R. that the petitioner was also cutting the neck of the deceased has not been corroborated by the other witnesses examined during the course of investigation and also that some of the witnesses have not named him at all before the Investigating Officer, I direct that the petitioner be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bound of Rs. 10,000/- (Rs. ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, East Champaran at Motihari in Mehsi (Rajapur) P. S. case no. 2/83. 9. It is also relevant to mention that inspite of the order passed by this Court to expedite the commitment, the case was not committed to the court of Sessions till the application was filed and it is not known whether the case has still been committed to the court of Sessions.