1. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Additional Government Advocate.
2. In our view, in the circumstances of the case, the petitioner No. 1, namely, Ramachandra Kanthari, should be admitted to bail. As the other petitioner is alleged to have assaulted the deceased to death, we are not inclined to admit him to bail.
3. The application is allowed in part. It is allowed in respect of the petitioner No. 1 and rejected in respect of the petitioner No. 2. The petitioner Ramachandra Kanthari is to be released on a bail of Rs. 5000/- (Rupees five thousand) with two sureties each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the Additional Sessions Judge, Karafuto at Jetport.
4. We notice that while rejecting the application for bail, the learned Additional Sessions Judge did not refer to the materials placed before him against both the petitioners, and passed a cryptic order. A Court of Session, while considering an application for bail, should pass a reasoned order although there should not be a detailed examination of the case on merits as that might prejudice either party and the quality and effect of the materials are not to be gone into. It should refer to the materials on record which would prima facie show as to whether there are reasonable grounds for believing that a person is guilty of the offence.
5. In this case and in some other cases as well, it has come to our notice that Courts of Session reject applications for bail mainly on the ground that the accused persons may abscond or may tamper with the prosecution evidence. If an objection is raised on behalf of the State that the accused persons are likely to abscond or tamper with the prosecution evidence, such a contention should be considered on merits. If no such objection is raised, an assumption should not be made against the accused-petitioners from nothing.