The change in circumstances, such as the filing of the charge-sheet, may impact the justification for exercising powers under Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

JUDGMENT :

VIBHA KANKANWADI, J.

1. Applicant is the original informant, who is challenging the orders passed granting bail to the respondents-accused in different applications by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalgaon in connection with Crime No. 381 of 2019 registered with Pachora Police Station, District-Jalgaon for the offence punishable under Sections 307, 143, 147, 148, 149, 354, 427, 323, 504 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. Respondent No. 2 in Application for Cancellation of Bail (for short “ACB”) No. 14 of 2020, Shubham Rajendra Patil has been granted bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in Criminal Bail Application No. 929 of 2019 on 4th January 2020, by the learned District Judge-3 and Additional Sessions Judge, Jalgaon. Respondent No. 2 in ACB No. 15 of 2020, Gopal Namdeo Patil has been granted bail in Criminal Bail Application No. 932 of 2019 by the same Court on the same date but by a separate order. Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 in ACB No. 16 of 2020 i.e. Chandrakant Atmaram Patil, Deepak Atmaram Patil and Rajendra Nathu Patil have been granted bail in Criminal Bail Application No. 936 of 2019 by the same Court on the same date, however, by separate order.

3. At the outset, it will have to be observed that when the concerned Court had the knowledge that all those applications were filed by the accused persons involved in the same crime, then why there should be a need to pass separate orders. This Court has time and again deprecated the tendency of the Judicial Officers to pass separate orders in common matters just to get more disposal norms. If we see the orders, then the same are just copy-paste of each other. Not only the wastage of energy but even the stationary could have been avoided by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalgaon.

4. Heard learned Advocate for the applicant, learned APP for the respondent-State and learned Advocate for respondents-accused in respective applications.

5. It has been vehemently submitted on behalf of the applicant in all the applications/original informant that the learned Additional Sessions Judge had not considered the seriousness of the offence and the necessity of the custodial interrogation of the respondents-accused. The offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code was made out and at the time of First Information Report, one of the injured was admitted in the Intensive Care Unit. There was absolutely no progress in the investigation on that date, still unnecessary observations have been made. Learned Advocate appearing for the applicant has taken through the medical certificate issued by Vighnaharta Multi Speciality Hospital, Pachora, which shows that uncle of the informant had the depressed fracture on left parietal bone. There was no evidence before the learned Additional Sessions Judge to arrive at a conclusion that “the informant is from the group of a person who is admittedly political heavy weight.” The learned Judge was not expected to be get carried away by the statements made by the accused-applicants in their applications for bail. The order that was passed by the learned Judge was very cryptic in nature. The learned Judge had not considered the fact that the weapons with which the injury has been caused, were required to be seized.

6. Learned Advocate for the applicant has, thereafter, pointed out that the investigation appears to have been got done by the Police with whatever material they had or could gather and the charge-sheet has been filed on 11th February 2021 bearing R.C.C. No. 185 of 2021. Certain weapons have been shown as seized from the accused persons. At the same time the statements of the witnesses are required to be seen which are now available before this Court. The witnesses are supporting the informant. Role has been attributed to each of the accused and also the weapons. The informant has any how got survived but the seriousness of the offence was not considered by the concerned Court. Further, it also appears that the