IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.30752 of 2009 ROSHAN KUMAR Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 2. 7.9.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The petitioner is in custody in Chowk P.S. Case No. 28/09 for the offence under Sections 302/34 and section 27 of the Arms Act. His prayer for bail has been rejected on 8.7.2009 by the Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Patna in Bail Petition No. 3099/2009. The allegations are that the petitioner left home at night with the deceased and others for a marriage ceremony. The dead body of the deceased was later found. There is no eye witness to the occurrence and the petitioner has been named only on suspicion. The impugned order of rejection states that witnesses in certain paragraph of the case diary“ have fully incriminated the petitioner”. On “going through the case diary and finding prima facie involvement of the petitioner in this case of serious nature” the prayer for bail has been rejected. This Court has repeatedly observed that dispensation of justice is a serious matter. When bail of a person-accused of an offence is refused it curtails and affects his liberty. Therefore, even the Apex Court has been repeatedly emphasizing that an order on a bail application must contain reasons. Though elaborate reasons on the merit of the case are not required the Court is required to disclose what was passing in its mind and for what reason it was 2 satisfied that the applicant was or was not entitled to bail. Judicial order/orders amenable to judicial review have repeatedly been held to state reasons which are heart and soul of the order. An order without reason becomes arbitrary. The present order is wholly arbitrary. The bail application of the petitioner is remanded to the Court of Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Patna to be heard afresh and fresh reasoned order to be passed. It is made clear that the matter remains entirely in the discretion of the Additional Sessions Judge whether to grant bail or to not grant bail for reasons to be recorded to his satisfaction. Let this order be communicated by fax at the cost of the Court. Let fresh orders, as discussed above, be passed within a maximum period of three weeks from the date of receipt and/or production of a copy of this order. This order has been passed in presence of the Counsel for the petitioner who it is expected shall duly appear before the Court below for its expeditious disposal. P. Kumar (Navin Sinha, J.)