Order Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Nobody appears on behalf of the opposite party no. 2 who, in spite of service of notice, has not appeared. 2. In this application, the petitioner has challenged that part of the order dated 24.8.2000 whereby, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi while granting bail to the accused/opposite party no. 2 in Kotwali (Sukhdeonagar) P.S. Case No. 247/2000 corresponding to G.A. No. 1775/2000, has entered into merit of the allegations made in the F.I.R. and has also made observation on the truthfulness or otherwise of the allegations in the F.I.R. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi has observed that the outstanding dues is Rs. 16,974.68 Paise as shown on the last bill. He also held that the loss to the Electricity Board amounting to Rs. 20,000/- is exorbitant. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has gone beyond the jurisdiction in giving such finding/observations while considering the grant of bail to the accused. 4. It appears that the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi was considering the application for bail filed by the accused in connection with Kotwali (Sukhdeonagar) P.S. Case No. 247/2000 corresponding to G.A. No. 1775/2000 registered under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 39/44 of the Electricity Act. It is alleged that the accused was committing theft of electric energy by hooking in his S.T.D. Booth and by this, he has caused loss to the Board to the tune of Rs. 10,000/-. 5. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is correct. The Chief Judicial Magistrate has gone beyond his jurisdiction in making uncalled for observations in his order questioning the legality, validity and correctness of the allegation at that stage. 6. In this view of the matter, this application is allowed and all or any adverse observation made by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi touching the merit or veracity of allegation in the F.I.A. in the impugned order are hereby quashed.