VINOD KUMAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Crl.M. No. 5381/2003: Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. Crl.M. (M.) No. 3976/2003 :

(2.) Learned Counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner's younger brother, Johny Kumar, who was working with Chhabra Trading Company, Chandni Chowk, Delhi was arrested on the allegations that he was taking one saree at the time of leaving the premises; on interrogation, he gave some disclosure statement involving his brother, both of them were arrested and were granted bail; stolen articles have already been recovered; petitioner moved an application before learned Additional Sessions Judge seeking pre-arrest bail. Learned Additional Sessions Judge dismissed bail application by a non-speaking order, which reads:

(3.) Giving reasons for granting bail to accused is different from discussing merits or demerits. At the stage of granting bail, a detailed examination of evidence and elaborate documentation of merits of the case has not to be undertaken. This has to be avoided. However, while exercising jurisdiction under Sections 438 or 439, Cr.P.C., the Additional Sessions Judge is required to give reasons while disposing of the petition, showing application of mind. It is needless to say that whatever may be constrains of time, the order which is subject to judicial review, has to be a speaking order. Reference in this regard can be made to the Supreme Court decision in Puran v. Rambilas and Another, III(2001) SLT 869=II (2001) CCR 255 (SC)=AIR 2001 SC 2023.