IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE APPELLATE SIDE APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1671 OF 2008 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1671 OF 2008 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1671 OF 2008 Shri Vinod Vikas Nakhwa. ... Applicant. V/s. The State of Maharashtra. ... Respondent. Gaurav Parkar for the applicant. Ms.P.P.Shinde, A.P.P. for the State. CORAM: V.C.DAGA, J. CORAM: V.C.DAGA, J. CORAM: V.C.DAGA, J. DATED: 18th June 2008. DATED: 18th June 2008. DATED: 18th June 2008. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: ---- ---- ---- . Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. By this application, filed under section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicant is seeking anticipatory bail apprehending his arrest in connection with C.R.No.I-3/2008 registered with Alibag Police Station for the offences punishable under sections 395, 143, 147, 148, 149, 452, 324, 323, 504 of Indian Penal Code on the basis of complaint filed by one Shri Gajanan Koli. 3. This application is moved by the applicant after having suffered adverse order dated 4th March, 2008 passed by he Third Ad-hoc Additional Session Judge, Raigad, Alibag in Criminal Misc.Application No.168/2008 contending that his application for anticipatory bail was rejected by the Sessions Court without recording any reasons. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that this Court should consider this application afresh. 4. I was taken through the order dated 4th March, 2008 passed by the Sessions Court; wherein the application filed by the present applicant (applicant No.2 therein) came to be rejected by one sentence order whereas applicant Nos.1 and 3 to 24, named in the said application were granted anticipatory bail again by one sentence order. 5. The learned A.P.P., appearing for the State, submits that looking to the absence of reasons to the order, the same may be set aside and the matter be remanded back to the learned trial Court for consideration afresh. Both parties have no objection for following the route suggested by learned A.P.P. 6. The bear reading of the impugned order shows that no reasons having indicated. Abrupt conclusion arrived at shows non- application of mind. The Apex Court in Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan @ Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan @ Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav & Anr Pappu Yadav & Anr Pappu Yadav & Anr, 2004 (7) SCC 528, in para-11, ruled - 3 - that the law in regard to the grant of bail and refusal to grant bail is well settled. The Court granting bail is expected to exercise its jurisdiction in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course. Though at the stage of granting or refusing to grant bail a detailed examination of evidence and elaborate documentation of the merits of the case need not be undertaken, there is a need to indicate in such orders reasons for prima facie concluding why bail was being granted, particularly, where the accused is charged of having committed a serious offence. Any order devoid of such reasons would suffer from non-application of mind. It is necessary for the Court granting bail to consider among other circumstances, the following factors: (a) The nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence; (b) Reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant; (c) Prima facie satisfaction of the court in support of the charge. - 4 - 7. The Apex Court in its judgment dated 21st February, 2008 passed in Criminal Appeal No.356/2008 (Sunil @ Balo Das & Ors. v. Rajesh Das & Ors. Sunil @ Balo Das & Ors. v. Rajesh Das & Ors. Sunil @ Balo Das & Ors. v. Rajesh Das & Ors.), relying upon English judgment observed as under: "7. Even in respect of administrative orders Lord Denning M.R. in Breen v. Amalgamated Engineering Union 1971 (1) All E.R. 1148 observed "The giving of reasons is one of the fundamentals of good administration". In Alexander Machinery (Dudley) Ltd. v. Crabtree 1974 LCR 120 it was observed: "Failure to give reasons amounts to denial of justice". Reasons are live links between the mind of the decision taker to the controversy in question and the decision or conclusion arrived at". Reasons substitute subjectivity by objectivity. The emphasis on recording reasons is that if the decision reveals the "inscrutable face of the sphinx", it can, by its silence, render it virtually impossible for the Courts to perform their appellate function or exercise the power of judicial review in adjudging the validity of the decision. Right to reason is an indispensable part of a sound judicial system, reasons at least sufficient to indicate an application of mind to the matter before Court. Another rationale is that the affected party can know why the decision has gone against him. One of the salutary requirements of natural justice is spelling out reasons for the order made, in other words, a speaking order. The "inscrutable face of a sphinx" is ordinarily incongruous with a judicial or quasi-judicial performance." 8. Above being the position, the impugned order is clearly unsustainable and liable to be set aside to the extent it refuses to grant bail to the applicant. In the result, by consent of parties, the order dated - 5 - 4th March, 2008 is set aside to the extent it refused to grant bail to the present applicant. Criminal Misc.Application No.138/2008 is restored to the file of the Sessions Court to that extent with direction to consider the said application afresh in the light of the observations made herein. 9. Parties to appear before the trial Court/ learned Sessions Judge on 24th June, 2008. JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE