IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Cr. Misc. No.6456 of 2011
1. Ram Pravesh Yadav, Son of Jamadar Rai, R/o-Vill.-Murlee P.S.-
Chhauradano, District-East Champaran.
2. Rukhsana Khatoon, W/o-Late Lal Mohammad, R/o-Vill.-Raghunathpur, P.S.-
Chhauradano, District-East Champaran. -Petitioners.
VERSUS
The State of Bihar -Opposite Party.
WITH
Cr. Misc. No.4962 of 2011
1. Nek Mohammed, Son of Rajbali Mian, R/o-Vill.-Gulariya (Pipra), P.S.-Darpa,
District-East Champaran.
2. Noor Alam Mian, Son of Adalat Mian, R/o-Vill.-Pipra, P.S.-Darpa, District-
East Champaran. -Petitioners.
VERSUS
The State of Bihar -Opposite Party.
-----------
02 14.03.2011 In both these cases the petitioners are in custody in
relation to Chiraiya P.S. Case No.132 of 2010 instituted under various
sections of the Indian Penal Code, read with Arms Act, Explosive
Substance Act and Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1908.
I have perused the order as passed by the 1st Additional
Sessions Judge, East Champaran, Motihari by which their bail
applications have been rejected. I cannot restrain myself but observe
that the said order is an apology for an order. An order rejecting bail
is nevertheless a judicial order passed by a Judicial Officer in his
judicial capacity. Unfortunately, the order reflects as if it has been
passed in a casual manner by an Officer not trained in judicial matters
and it totally lacks judicial temperament. There is absolutely non-
application of mind. The order only says that witnesses have
supported the incident and the case diary shows involvement of the
petitioners and chargesheets have been submitted. The Judicial
Officer and, that too, of the rank of Additional Sessions Judge should
-2-
keep in mind that these orders are subject to judicial review by the
High Court. They are supposed to apply their mind and disclose as to
what is the material as against the petitioner, which persuades the
Court not to grant bail. It cannot throw its responsibility on the High
Court to call of all the records and reexamine the thing. When all the
records were available to him that only shows that the Officers though
writes three pages order is shirking his responsibility, either he lacks
the courage for conviction or refuses to apply his mind judicially.
There must be cogent reasons recorded which can be examined by the
High Court from the order sheet itself.
In such view of the matter, I am left with no option but
to remit the matter back to the learned Judge for reconsideration in
proper perspective without shirking his responsibility and showing his
incompetence in the matter. The learned Judge would be well advised
to reconsider the matter and pass fresh orders within two weeks of
filing of fresh application before him.
Let the order be communicated by FAX to the learned
Judge at the cost of the petitioners.
Let the order also be sent to the Bihar Judicial
Academy so that they may consider teaching the Judicial Officers
about the right approach in writing such orders.
Both the applications are, accordingly, disposed of.
Trivedi/ (Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)