IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.32510 of 2009 ASIN @ RAKESH KORA Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 2. 10.9.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The petitioner is in custody in a Police case under Sections 147, 148, 323, 324, 302 and 201 of the Penal Code and Section 17 of the Criminal Amendment Law Act. The allegations are that seven motorcycles with three persons each totaling 21 arrived in the village. They dragged the father of the informant, assaulted, slit his throat and killed him. A poster of the M.C.C.I. was thrown on the spot. The deceased was killed suspected to be a police informer. The impugned order of rejection states that the Court had perused the case diary. There was evidence available against the petitioner and the charge sheet has been submitted that the allegations were serious. There is absolutely no discussion of the nature of the materials prima facie against the petitioner in the serious nature of allegations made in the First Informant report. It is as if the learned Additional Sessions Judge,-IIIrd Munger did not wish to take any responsibility for the order that he was passing. This Court in judicial review jurisdiction is unable to make up its mind whether to grant bail or to reject bail in view of the nature of the impugned order. 2 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 present order is wholly arbitrary. The bail application of the petitioner arising from Dharhara Police Station Case No. 32 of 2008/ G.R. No. 544 of 2008 is remanded to the Court of the IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Munger who is directed to hear the bail application afresh, pass fresh reasoned orders disclosing application of mind which persuades him to grant bail or not to grant bail, which shall remain within his sole discretion. Let this order be communicated by fax at the cost of the Court through registry. Let fresh bail order, as discussed above, be then 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.)