( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.604 OF 2007 CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.604 OF 2007 CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.604 OF 2007 Raosaheb Namdev Chavan & Ors. .. Applicants. Versus The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent. Mr.M.S.Patankar for the applicants. Mr.H.J.Dedhia, A.P.P. for the State. CORAM : R.Y. GANOO, J. CORAM : R.Y. GANOO, J. CORAM : R.Y. GANOO, J. DATED : 2nd June, 2008. DATED : 2nd June, 2008. DATED : 2nd June, 2008. ORAL JUDGEMENT :- ORAL JUDGEMENT :- ORAL JUDGEMENT :- 1. Heard Mr.Patankar for the applicants and Mr.Dedhia, learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith with the consent of parties. Taken up for final hearing. 3. By an order dated 19.9.2007, learned Special Judge, Greater Bombay in Special Case No.119 of 2001 rejected the application filed by the present applicants being application dated 3.11.2004. By the said application, the applicants had prayed for discharge as per Section 227 of Cr.P.C. and had alternatively prayed that joint charges against the applicants alongwith other accused is in violation of provisions of Section 218 and 227 of Cr.P.C. 4. Having heard learned Advocate Mr.Patankar, it is seen that the police have levelled allegations ( 2 ) against all the accused including the present applicants based on the incidents which are said to have taken place on 12th and 15th of December, 2000. It would be difficult to de-link the two incidents as the incident of 12.12.2000 is the foundation for the incident of 15.12.2000. To that extent, if at all there is a case against the applicants, they can be tried alongwith other persons who were concerned with the incident of 12.12.2000. 5. The question whether there is any material against the present applicants for levelling allegations against them and framing charge against them. Having perused the text of the application dated 3.11.2004, I am inclined to observe that the said application does not specifically mention as to what was the material on the basis of which the present applicants came to be arrested and involved in the Special Case No.119 of 2001. 6. In my view, it was absolutely necessary for the applicants to set out in the application for discharge whatever material which appeared against them in the charge-sheet and offer their comments so as to contend that the said material is insufficient to frame a charge against them. In the absence of this, the learned Trial Judge was handicapped in the ( 3 ) matter of appreciating the record so far as present applicants are concerned. In view of this, I am inclined to grant liberty to the present applicants to file regular discharge application afresh setting out therein the material which is appearing against them as appearing in the charge-sheet, offer their comments and then convince the learned Judge to pass an order for discharge. 7. Once such an application is made, the learned Special Judge shall decide the application on merits and pass appropriate order. The learned Trial Judge shall not consider the order which was passed by him on 19.9.2007 and impugned in this petition. Merits of the fresh discharge application to be filed by the applicants are left open. 8. Rule is discharged accordingly. (R.Y. GANOO, J.) (R.Y. GANOO, J.) (R.Y. GANOO, J.)