ORDER 1. Heard Counsel for the petitioner and A.P.P. representing the State. 2. The petitioner, facing prosecution for offences under Sections 25 (1-B)A, 26 & 35 of the Arms Act, has made a prayer for grant of bail in this case on the ground that the shop in question from where the countrymade pistol and three live cartridges had been recovered actually belongs to Arvind Kumar Singh who in fact had also kept the same under his bed in the shop and that the petitioner is only a salesman of the shop. 3. Counsel for the petitioner in this context by referring to the averments made in the First Information Report lodged at the instance of the police officer, has submitted that such recovery of weapon, countrymade pistol and live cartridges were made at the instance of the owner of the shop Arvind Kumar Singh himself who was intercepted by the police at his residence in Mohalla Takia Badaiya Bag and who during course of search and seizure of his residential premises had confessed that he had kept his firearms and cartridges in his liquor shop and on such disclosure when the liquor shop of Arvind Kumar Singh was raided and searched in the presence of Arvind Kumar Singh himself, the firearms in question with live cartridges were recovered from his bed inside the shop. Counsel for the petitioner has thus submitted that in the First Information Report itself, it is clearly mentioned that the petitioner is only the salesman of the aforementioned shop who was present during search and seizure and recovery of the arms, which actually was found, was concealed in the bed in the Shop belonging to Arvind Kumar Singh and therefore he cannot be made liable in any manner for the arms in question. Counsel for the petitioner in this regard had also submitted that when the aforementioned Arvind Kumar Singh, the owner of the shop at whose instance the firearms and the cartridges was recovered from his shop had already been granted bail on 10.12.2007 in Bail Petition No. 1709/2007 by an order passed by the Sessions Judge, Rohtas, the same Sessions Judge had no reason to reject the prayer of bail of the petitioner as has been done by him in his order dated 8.1.2008 in Bail Petition No. 1799/2007. Counsel in support of his submission has produced the certified copy of the said order dated 10.12.2007 granting bail to Arvind Kumar Singh which has been kept on record of this case. 4. Learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State did not controvert the aforementioned submissions but he had submitted that the petitioner being the salesman and present in the shop from where arms and cartridges were recovered could not have disowned his involvement merely because the shop belonged to Arvind Kumar Singh and/or arms and cartridges were recovered at his disclosure from the shop. 5. This Court having considered the rival submission is of the view that Sessions Judge ought to have not refused bail to the petitioner once he had granted bail to Arvind Kumar Singh. It is an admitted fact that the police party had firstly apprehended Arvind Kumar Singh at his residence and the said Arvind Kumar Singh had himself disclosed to the police party that he had kept his arms in his the wine shop and when the police party accompanying Arvind Kumar Singh had raided the premises in question namely his wine shop, such recovery of arms with cartridges was made in presence of Arvind Kumar Singh where the petitioner also was found present and had disclosed his identity as the salesman of the shop. Admittedly, the arms in question were not recovered from the personal physical possession of the petitioner and therefore if Arvind Kumar Singh was already granted bail by the same Sessions Judge by an order dated 10.12.2007 on the ground that nothing was recovered from his physical possession, he had no reason to refuse bail to the petitioner from whose personal physical possession such arms was not recovered. 6. It is really amazing that Arvind Kumar Singh at whose instance the arms in question was recovered from his wine shop on the basis of his disclosure from a place pointed out by him in the shop has been granted bail by the Sessions Judge way back on 10.12.2007 but a similar treatment was not given by the same Sessions Judge to the petitioner whose prayer for bail was rejected by a subsequent order dated 8.1.2008 in Bail Petition No. 1799/2007. This Court fails to understand the reasoning as to how the Sessions Judge while rejecting the bail petition of the petitioner has come to record a finding that the said recovery of the arms in question would be deemed to be from the conscious possession of the petitioner when he had himself in the earlier order 10.12.2007 had held that Arvind Kumar Singh was not in possession of the arms in question because the same was not recovered from his personal physical possession. The reasoning as recorded in the two bail orders by the Sessions Judge, Rohtas while granting bail to Arvind Kumar Singh and refusing bail to the petitioner on identical facts amounts to indiscreet and arbitrary exercise of power by him. It is apparent that Arvind Kumar Singh facing a much graver allegation in the F.I.R. dated 15.11.2007 and also having criminal antecedent was granted bail on 10.12.2007 within 25 days of his being in judicial custody for extraneous reasons by the Sessions Judge, Rohtas and his such injudicious approach is further exposed when it is found that the petitioner having lesser allegation and clean antecedents had been refused bail on 8.1.2008 by him as a result whereof the petitioner has to remain in jail for more than six months. By no stretch of imagination the same Sessions Judge could have adopted two varying standards in the same criminal case by admitting bail to the main accused Arvind Kumar Singh on 10.12.2007 and refusing bail to the petitioner by an order dated 8.1.2008. Such judicial impropriety on the part of the Sessions Judge is a serious matter as such orders not only lead to filing of a large number of unnecessary and uncalled for bail petitions before this Court but also in a way shakes the faith of litigants in the justice dispensation system itself. 7. Be that as it may, this Court upon considering the aforementioned facts that the said arms were not recovered from the personal physical possession of the petitioner and further that he has no criminal antecedent and has remained in jail for a period of more than six months, is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner in connection with Sasaram (Agrer) P.S. Case No. 567/ 2007 on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- with two sureties each to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sasaram. 10,000/- with two sureties each to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sasaram. It is however made clear that one of the bailors must be father of the petitioner who has sworn affidavit in support of this bail application. 8. Let a copy of this order be placed before the Standing Committee of His Court for taking appropriate administrative action against the concerned Sessions Judge Rohtas.