Mere mentioning of the pleadings , arguments and list of authorities and criptic conclusion – can not be cosidered as reasoned order = The need to remand the case to the High Courthas occasioned because on perusal of the impugned order, we find that paras 1 to 4 contain facts of the case, paras 5 and 6 contain the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, paras 7 to 9 refer to 3 what transpired in the Trial Court, paras 10 and 11 contain quotation from two decisions of this Court and para 12 contains the conclusion, which reads as under: “12. After giving analytical thought to the facts and circumstances of the case, the instant petition is found devoid of merit, consequent thereupon is dismissed.” In the entire impugned order, which consists of 13 paras, we find that the High Court did not assign any reason as to why the petition is liable to be dismissed. In other words, neither there is any discussion and nor the reasoning on the submissions urged by the learned counsel for the parties.

NON­REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 888 OF 2019 (Arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.) No.3502 of 2019) Jitender Kumar @ Jitender Singh  ….Appellant(s) VERSUS The State of Bihar       ….Respondent(s)                   J U D G M E N T Abhay Manohar Sapre, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. This   appeal   is   directed   against   the   final judgment and order dated 28.03.2019 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Patna in Criminal Miscellaneous No.5293 of 2019 whereby the High 1 Court dismissed the petition filed by the appellant herein. 3. A few facts need mention hereinbelow for the disposal of this appeal, which involves a short point. 4. By   impugned   order,   the   High   Court   (Single Judge) dismissed the petition filed by the appellant herein under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,   1973   (for   short,   “Cr.P.C.)   and,   in consequence, affirmed the order dated 09.04.2015 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamui in connection with P.S. Case No.154 of 2013 whereby the appellant along  was summoned to face  Session Trial No.280 of 2016 pending in the Court of First Additional & Sessions Judge, Jamui for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 325, 326, 331, 352 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, “IPC”). 2 5. The   short   question,   which   arises   for consideration in this appeal, is whether the High Court   was   right   in   dismissing   the   appellant’s petition. 6. Heard   Ms.   Anjana   Prakash,   learned   senior counsel for the appellant and Ms. Hemlata Ranga, learned counsel for the respondent­State. 7. Having   heard   the   learned   counsel   for   the parties and on perusal of the record of the case, we are   inclined   to   allow   this   appeal,   set   aside   the impugned order and remand the case to the High Court   (Single   Judge)   for   deciding   the   appellant’s petition afresh on merits in accordance with law. 8. The need to remand the case to the High Court has occasioned because on perusal of the impugned order, we find that paras 1 to 4 contain facts of the case, paras 5  and 6 contain the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, paras 7 to 9 refer to 3 what transpired in the Trial Court, paras 10 and 11 contain quotation from two decisions of this Court and para 12 contains the conclusion, which reads as under: “12.   After   giving   analytical   thought   to   the facts   and   circumstances   of   the   case,   the instant   petition   is   found   devoid   of   merit, consequent thereupon is dismissed.”  9. In the entire impugned order, which consists of 13 paras, we find that the High Court did not assign any reason as to why the petition is liable to be dismissed. In other words, neither there is any discussion   and   nor   the   reasoning   on   the submissions urged by the learned counsel for the parties.  10. In our view, such approach of the High Court while   disposing   of   the   petition   cannot   be countenanced.   Time   and   again,   this   Court   has emphasized   the   necessity   of   giving   reasons   in 4 support of the conclusion because it is the reason, which   indicates   the   application   of   mind.   It   is, therefore,   obligatory   for   the   Court   to   assign   the reasons as to why the petition is allowed or rejected, as the case may be. 11. As mentioned above, para 12 only records the conclusion. It is for this reason, we feel that the matter must go back to the High Court for deciding the  petition  afresh  on merits  in accordance  with law. 12. In view of the foregoing discussion, the appeal succeeds and is accordingly allowed. The impugned order is set aside.  The matter is remanded to the High Court for deciding the petition, out of which this appeal arises, afresh on merits in accordance with   law   keeping   in   view   the   observations   made above. 5 13. We, however, make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the issues arising   in   the   case   having   formed   an   opinion   to remand the case to the High Court for deciding it afresh on the ground mentioned above. The High Court will, therefore, decide the matter on its merits uninfluenced by any of our observations made in this order. 14. The parties are granted liberty to mention the matter in the High Court for its early hearing.         ……………………………………..J.   [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE]                                       ….………………………………….J.         [DINESH MAHESHWARI] New Delhi; May 10, 2019. 6