MOHENDRA NATH BORA Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Perused the explanation submitted by the Sessions Judge. He has realized his error and regretted for rendering the non-speaking order. I am glad to note that learned Judge he realized that to perpetuate an error is no heroism, to rectify it is the compulsion of judicial conscience. A Judge ought to be wise enough to know that he is fallible, and therefore, ever ready to learn ; great and honest enough to discard all mere pride of opinion, and follow truth wherever it may lead; and courageous enough to acknowledge his errors. These are the inspiring words of Justice Bronson in Pierce v. Delameter.1 With these observations the episode comes to an end.

(2.) However, I desire to say few words about the necessity of giving a reasoned order while disposing an application for bail or anticipatory bail. Of late notice that the learned Magistrates and the learned Sessions Judges dispose of applications for bail by slip-shod orders. This has become a regular feature.

(3.) One must realize that the majority of the accused are poor and they supplicate for their liberty and justice. They claim freedom and liberty and crave for judicial justice. But in turn they receive cryptic orders. It is high time for the judicial officers to bear in mind that they must dispense judicial justice while disposing applications for bail or pre-arrest bail. The Court has jurisdiction to grant or refuse bail. In other words, it is the obligation of the Court to give reasons while rejecting applications for bail. An order rejecting the application- For bail or pre-arrest bail without furnishing reasons is a purported order and not a unreal order and amounts to refusal to exercise jurisdiction vested in the court by law. I enumerate herein below some of the reasons why a, reasoned order is necessary for disposal of such applications: