ORDER : Arijit Pasayat, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Having perused the impugned judgment of the High Court we find that it is practically a non-reasoned order. The High Court observed that the prosecution had established that the accident occurred when the trailer attached to the tractor got detached and fell into the valley and in the process three persons died and several were injured. This according to the High Court was sufficient to show negligence on the part of the driver of the vehicle. It has not even been indicated as to how the evidence established that the trailer got detached from the tractor because of any negligence on the part of the driver. This is a crucial aspect which the High Court has not dealt with. The High Court has not even indicated that it was in agreement with the analysis of evidence done by the trial court. 3. In the circumstances, we feel that the matter needs to be reconsidered by the High Court. We remit the matter to the High Court for fresh consideration and disposal. It goes without saying that the matter shall be disposed of by a speaking and reasoned order. We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and have directed the matter to be reheard because the impugned order is non-reasoned and non-speaking. The appellant is stated to be on bail. Till the disposal of the matter afresh by the High Court, the bail orders shall be operative. 4. The appeal is accordingly disposed of.