VIJAY SUBODH PATIL Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(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 Ss. 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 Sec. 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in Criminal Bail Application No.929 of 2019 on 4/1/2020, 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.