IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.30049 of 2009 BIRAN YADAV Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 2. 01.09.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The petitioner is in custody in a Police case under Section 395 of the Penal Code. The submission is that the F.I.R. is against five to six unknown, who had their faces covered. There is no recovery from the petitioner, neither has he been put on T.I. Parade. The only material is the alleged confession of a co-accused on which the impugned order records a conclusion of circumstances of the case when the petitioner had committed the offence. Learned counsel for the State submits from the impugned order that it refers to various paragraphs of the case diary but fairly concedes that what is the material against the petitioner in those several paragraphs finds no mention in the order. Dispensation of justice is a serious business. Denial of bail is the curtailment of the liberty of a citizen, a restriction of his fundamental rights. Orders refusing bail are subject to judicial review and are required to be considered, briefly indicating the reasons to enable the superior Court to make up its mind either ways. The impugned order proceeds in a manner as if it wishes to take no responsibility for rejecting the prayer for bail, leaving this 2 court to again call for the case diary. This Court is satisfied and comes to the conclusion that the absence of any discussion in the impugned order of the nature of the materials in the case diary is prompted by non-availability of the same. The petitioner, therefore, deserves bail. Let the petitioner, abovenamed 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 C.J.M., Aurangabad in Rafiganj P.S. Case No. 07 of 2009. Let this order be placed before the Presiding Officer, who passed the impugned order. AKS/ (Navin Sinha, J.)