JUDGMENT 1. - The learned counsel for the accused-petitioner Mr. Choudhary vehemently submitted that while rejecting the bail application of the accused-petitioner, the learned Judge has not given any reason whatsoever, therefore, this bail application be accepted and the accused-petitioner be released on bail. He submitted that FIR is filed late by 20 days after the incident. He also submitted that in this case, the proceedings have been initiated under section 174 Cr.P.C. by the ADM City Magistrate. During that time, the complainant, her husband and others were present and they have clearly mentioned in writing that they had no doubt whatsoever about the death.of Sunita. On the basis of this, it was submitted by Mr. Choudhary that there was no harassment to the deceased Sunita from her in-law side. He submitted that Sunita committed suicide not because of the harassment from her in-law side, but because of her strained relations with none else, but with her mother and before the death also, there was some quarrel between the deceased and her mother and that was the reason for committing suicide by Sunita. Mr. Choudhary submitted that these contentions have been specifically raised in para No. 1 of the bail application submitted before the learned Sessions Judge, but the same have not at all been dealt with or discussed by the learned Judge in his order and without considering the same, the bail application of the accused-petitioner has been rejected. 2. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor Mr. Vyas submitted that the learned Sessions Judge was not required to assign any reason while rejecting the bail application of the accused-petitioner. He submitted that he has to satisfy himself from the case diary and other record produced before him and on the facts of this case, the learned Sessions Judge, on perusal of the case diary and other record, was fully satisfied that no case is made out to grant bail to the present accused-petitioner, therefore, the learned Judge without assigning reasons, rejected her bail application. 3. However, Mr. 3. However, Mr. Choudhary, learned counsel for the accused-petitioner vehemently submitted that the learned Sessions Judge has not at all taken into consideration the fact that the accused-petitioner is an aged widow, who has been granted anticipatory bail by the Sessions Court,itself, but on filing challan papers, the learned Magistrate rejected the bail application, therefore, when she filed a common petition along with her daughter, her bail application was rejected, without considering the fact that she was granted bail by the Sessions Court itself. 4. Mr. Vyas, learned Public Prosecutor, in support of his submission that the 'earned Sessions Jude is not required to assign any reason while rejecting the bail application, has relied upon three judgments of the Supreme Court in Niranjan Singh & Anr. v. Prabhakar Rajaram Kharote & Ors., AIR 1980 SC 785 , Jivaji Jadeja & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors., AIR 1987 SC 1491 & Kashi Nath Roy v. State of Bihar, 1996 Cr.L.J. 2469 para 6. 5. In the latest judgment in Kashi Nath Roy's case (supra), the Supreme Court has observed that Courts exercising bail jurisdiction normally do and should refrain from indulging in elaborate reasoning in their orders in justification of grant or non-grant of bail. 6. In the case of Jivaji Jadeja (supra), a brief order was passed by a learned Single Judge of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which I would like to reproduce, as under:- "ORDER.-The Special Leave Petitions are allowed to be withdrawn since the petitioners would be making a fresh application for bail to the High Court, in view of the fact that the High Court proceeded on an erroneous basis that the order granting or refusing bail must be a speaking order. The petitioners are given time to surrender by 4.00 p.m. on 24.10.1986 unless in the meanwhile, the High Court in the exercise of its discretion, thinks it fit to grant bail or extend the time for surrender." 7. In the case of Niranjan Singh (supra), the Apex Court has observed that "Detailed examination of the evidence and elaborate documentation of the merits of the case should be avoided while passing orders on bail applications. No party should have the impression that his case has been prejudiced. In the case of Niranjan Singh (supra), the Apex Court has observed that "Detailed examination of the evidence and elaborate documentation of the merits of the case should be avoided while passing orders on bail applications. No party should have the impression that his case has been prejudiced. To be satisfied about a prima facie case is needed but it is not the same as an exhaustive exploration of the merits in the order itself." 8. Thus, in none of the aforesaid cases, the Apex Court has laid down the proposition that while rejecting bail application, the Courts are not required to give.arty reasons. The proposition, which is laid down by the Apex Court, is that the Courts exercising bail jurisdiction normally do and should refrain from indulging in elaborate reasoning in their orders in justification of grant or non-grant of bail. Nothing more than that has been laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 9. As a First Court, the Courts below are required to record atleast brief reasons either for grant or for refusal of bail, which would enable the higher Courts to consider the cases in an objective manner. 10. At this stage, I must state that some misconception is prevailing in the mind of some of the subordinate Judges of the State, who disposed of the bail applications without assigning any reasons, which in my opinion is not proper. They may not elaborate in their judgments, but at the same time, some brief reasons are desirable. 11. It appears that in this case also, the learned Sessions Judge has rejected the bail application of the accused-petitioner under the wrong impression that no reasons were required to be assigned while rejecting the bail application. 12. However, on this ground alone, the bail cannot be granted to the accused-petitioner. 13. Under the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the accused-petitioner may file a fresh bail application before the learned Sessions Judge, who will decide such bail application by assigning atleast some brief reasons. The rejection of earlier bail application will not come in the way of the accused-petitioner. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and it would be open to the learned Sessions Judge to pass any order either to grant or to refuse bail by assigning some brief reasons, in accordance with law. 14. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and it would be open to the learned Sessions Judge to pass any order either to grant or to refuse bail by assigning some brief reasons, in accordance with law. 14. With these observations, this bail application stands disposed of. 15. The Registry is directed to circulate the copy of this order to the subordinate Courts.Orders accordingly. *******