IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.46322 of 2008 UMESH SAHNI, S/O- DASARATH SAHNI, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE MAHMADPUR BALAMI, P.S. MOTIPUR, DISTRICT- MUZAFFARPUR. Versus STATE OF BIHAR 2 27.11.2008 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner apprehend arrest in a police case under sections 341, 323, 316 and 34 of Indian Penal Code. The allegation against the petitioner is that he assaulted the informant who was five months pregnant. She suffered bleeding when she was taken to the hospital on 24.4.2008. She ultimately aborted the foetus on 27/28.4.2008 in the night at 1 p.m. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the medical report does not support the prosecution version. This issue was specifically raised before the Court below as is also apparent from the submissions of the petitioner noticed in paragraph no. 2 of the impugned order. A copy of the medical report is also on record as Annexure-2 that there was no pregnancy. Abortion of a foetus of five months old is a serious matter which can also lead to the death of the lady. Curiously the court below notices the submissions like “ foetus of a womb was also shown to the investigating officer”, even if that be accepted for the purpose of discussion, is a highly unlikely conduct, this Court fails to understand why the medical report, an aspect placed before the court below, has not been considered and there is no discussion - 2 - whether it was available in the case diary or it was not available in the case diary. An order which is amenable to judicial review has to be reasoned and discussed. The duty of the court is to consider all materials on record and then dispense justice. This not only facilitates judicial review but also assures the litigants that he has had a fair hearing. In the facts of the present case, when the matter was being heard, learned counsel for the State at once stage suggested that the case diary be called for. Perhaps that was the reason of the manner of the order passed, to delay justice by requiring this Court to again call for the case diary without recording properly in the order of rejection, the matter available or not available in the case diary with regard to the allegations to enable this court to make up its mind either ways. Let the petitioner abovenamed surrender before the court below within four weeks when he shall be enlarged on anticipatory bail upon furnishing the bail bonds of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned C.J.M., Muzaffarpur in connection with Motipur P.s. case no. 62/2008 subject to the condition laid down under section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Let this order be place before District & Sessions Judge, Muzaffarpur. pkj (Navin Sinha, J) - 3 -