IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.30648 of 2009 RAGHUBANSH RAY @ RAGHU WANSH RAI Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 2. 07.09.2009 Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the State. The petitioner is in custody in a Police case under Sections 302/201 of the Penal Code. The allegations are for recovery of the dead body of a ten years old girl from the well. There is no eye witness and none named in the FIR. The impugned order of rejection passed by the lst Additional Sessions Judge Vaishali at Hajipur in B.P. No. 156 of 2009 arising out of Bidupur PS Case No. 72 of 2008 states that he has perused the case records and then refers to various paragraphs of the case diary that “supports the factum” of the alleged occurrence. Whether this “factum” refers to the recovery of the dead body from the well or with regard to the materials against the petitioner is not disclosed in the order. Likewise, the order again refers to certain paragraphs of the case diary “regarding his involvement”. There is no discussion of the materials on basis of which the Court was satisfied of his “involvement”. The order then concludes that there were “sufficient materials” in the case diary. The nature of sufficiency of materials finds no reference. The prayer for bail was then 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 repeatedly emphasised 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. Judicial orders which are amenable to judicial review, have repeatedly been held to require reasons which are the heart and soul of an order. An order without reasons becomes arbitrary. The present order is wholly arbitrary. The bail application of the petitioner is remanded to the Court of lst Additional Sessions Judge, Vaishali at Hajipur to be heard afresh and a fresh and 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 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. Snkumar/- (Navin Sinha,J.)