IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.35455 of 2008 1. RAM KUMAR YADAV 2. UPENDRA YADAV Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 2. 10.11.2008 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State. The petitioners apprehend arrest in a Police case under Sections 302/34 of the Penal Code. The informant is the Chaukidar. The body of the deceased was found in the field. The submission on behalf of the petitioner is that they are not named in the first information report and have been implicated only on suspicion. The court below has referred to paragraphs 41, 45, 82 and 108 of the supplementary case diary to reject the anticipatory bail petition of the petitioner. There is no discussion in the order of the nature of the materials in the aforesaid paragraphs which satisfied the Court that the petitioner does not deserve anticipatory bail much less to enable this Court to review the matter. The situation is that this Court is required to call for the case diary. When the order of a Court is amenable to scrutiny by a superior Court, the judicial propriety requires that the order should be reasoned. Let the Sessions Judge, Samastipur pass a fresh and reasoned order on the materials in the supplementary case diary recording his satisfaction upon the same in accordance with law. 2 Let the same be done within a maximum period of two months from the date that the order is received by him. Let this order be communicated by fax immediately by the Court. The petitioners abovenamed are granted anticipatory bail for a period of two months with a direction to surrender within a period of four weeks when they shall be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 10,000/-(Rupees ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of A. C.J.M., Rosera, Samastipur in Hasanpur P.S. case No.105 of 2003. Their status thereafter shall abide by such fresh order that may be passed. AKS/ (Navin Sinha, J.)