JUDGMENT 1. - It is really surprising that before filing a charge- sheet no pains are taken by the concerned authority/investigating agency, as to how the accused is connected with the crime. It is often seen that even in the absence of any evidence, a charge-sheet is filed by the prosecuting agency/investigating agency just to be free from their accountability and responsibility. This practice should be checked. 2. In the instant case I pointedly asked the learned PP, if there is any evidence to connect the petitioner with the crime, and after seeing the case diary, he frankly conceded that there is none. The petitioner was not identified in the identification parade, nor any looted property was recovered from his possession. None of the eye witness knew the petitioner prior to the incident and he has not been named by any one of them in their statements under section 161 Cr.P.C. 3. The learned District & Sessions Judge equally rejected the bail application without considering at to how the accused is connected with the crime. A superior Court of the rank of Sessions Judge is not expected to deal with the bail application in such a light manner and he should not hesitates in granting such bails applications. A judicial officer is expected to act boldly. 4. In the absence of any evidence to connect the petitioner, he is entitled to be released on bail under section 439, Cr.P.C., even though, the offence may be a serious one. 5. It is, therefore, ordered that the accused- petitioner - Ramswaroop s/o Uttam Gurjar shall be released on bail, provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- with two sureties in the sum of Rs. 5,000/- each to the satisfaction of the trial Court with the stipulation to appear before that Court or any other Court on all subsequent dates of hearing and as & when called upon to do so during the pendency of the trial/investigation/inquiry as the case may, against him in this case. *******