IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.32756 of 2009 BRINDLAL SINGH @ BRIND SINGH Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 2. 14.9.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The petitioner is in custody in a Police case under Sections 364, 302 and 201/34 of the Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act against unknown. The impugned order of rejection from the materials in the case diary is unreasoned and does not help this Court to make up its mind whether to grant bail or to reject bail. Apex Court has repeatedly emphasized 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 satisfied that the applicant was or was not entitled to bail. This Court has repeatedly held that dispensation of justice is a serious business. Bail involves the liberty of the citizen to be balanced with the interest of the society. Such orders amenable to judicial review must contain reasons. An order without reasons becomes arbitrary. The bail application of the petitioner arising form Punpun P.S. Case No. 64/03 is remanded to the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge- XII, Patna who is directed to rehear the earlier bail application afresh and pass fresh reasoned orders 2 disclosing application of mind which persuades it to grant bail or not to grant bail, which shall remain within its sole discretion. Let this order be communicated by fax to the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, XII, Patna and before when S.T. No. 681/09 is pending at the cost of the Court. 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.)