ORDER Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Counsel for the State. 2. The petitioners who are cousin brother-in-laws of the husband of the complainant apprehend arrest in a complaint case under Section 398A of the Penal Code and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 3. The Sessions Court while rejecting the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners has noticed that the husband of the complainant has already been released on regular bail. Other family members had already been enlarged on anticipatory bail by the High Court. Yet, the prayer for bail of the petitioners, in the background of generalised allegations, has been rejected, to be considered in the right perspective by the court of the Magistrate. 4. This Court finds it difficult to comprehend what was implied by the term "right perspective", in the present facts and circumstances of the case. The impugned order reflects no grounds as to what passed in the mind of the Sessions Court to reject the prayer for anticipatory bail. Orders such as the present reflect refusal to exercise jurisdiction vested by law. The order is completely mechanical and without application of mind. The Sessions Court perhaps thought that the grant of relief may appropriately be left to the High Court. Orders such as the present have led to the surfeit of bail applications before this Court creating a unmanageable burden. The present order has been passed notwithstanding the judgment and order of this Court reported in 2006(3) PLJR 182 where, guidelines were laid down by this Court for consideration of bail applications such as the present. It is unfortunate that the order of the Sessions Court ignores the guidelines by this Court. This Court finds it difficult to appreciate the same. 5. Let the petitioners namely Mahesh Prasad and Mahendra Prasad surrender in the Court below within a period of four weeks from today, when they shall be enlarged on anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 10,000/- with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of SDJM Gaya in Complaint Case No. 129 of 2005, Tr. No. 1247 of 2005. Let a copy of this order be sent to all the District Judges of the State for onwards circulation.