JUDGMENT

Ravindra V. Ghuge, J.—Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the consent of the parties.

2. The petitioner/State is aggrieved by the order dated 19.03.1015 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad below application Exhibit-4 in Special Case No. 53 of 2014.

3. The learned APP appearing on behalf of the petitioner has strenuously criticized the impugned order primarily on two grounds. Firstly, that the application Exhibit-4 sets out vague and ambiguous pleadings and secondly, the impugned order is a cryptic order and that no reasons are assigned while passing the said order.

4. The learned APP submits that merely because the accused filed an application seeking a direction to the cellular services provider to preserve the record with regard to the cellular phones, the trial Court has passed the order and particularly when the two cellular phones have no concern with the proceedings. Such an order should be passed for justifiable reasons.

5. He further submits that any application inviting a Judicial order ought to set out the purpose for which the jurisdiction of the Court is invoked and justify the prayer made. He places reliance on the