District & Sessions Judge submitted that on the basis of information furnished by the P.O. concerned, he had furnished a letter to the Superintendent of Police. Also submitted that the episode happens to be during the period of his predecessor, who has also been show-caused, though it has been averred that the order of the High Court has been down loaded and the same was sent to the S.D.J.M., Udakishanganj vide D.B. No.50 dated 24.01.2018, but the same is not available on the record and for that, there happens to be an eyewash by way of naming a ClassIII Employee to be responsible for the same, who superannuated in the same month. With regard to information having given to the S.P., Madhepura, it has also been stated that though there was no such provision under Criminal Court Rules, but he, on her own supplied the desired information. It is further evident that in spite of disclosure while renewing prayer for bail at the end of the accused, vide bail petition dated 30.01.2019 at Para-2 as well as Para-7 of the bail petition, having a disclosure with regard to refusal of prayer for bail under Cr. Misc. No.48889 of 2017 with a direction, but the reason best known to the learned Presiding Officer as well as the learned District & Sessions Judge, Madhepura failed to incorporate the same in the order impugned and in likewise manner, the District & Sessions
