VAIDYA, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner Thakore Laxmanji alias Angi Rajuji, who came to be arrested on 30-9-1991 alongwith three other accused persons in connection with C. R. No. 147 of 1991, for causing injuries to one makwana Jagdish Shankar for the alleged offences punishable under Secs. 323, 326 and 114 of the I. P. C. , Sec. 135 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951, and Sec. 3 (10) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, has by this Misc. Criminal Application moved this Court for getting himself released on bail challenging the impugned judgment and order dated 8-10-1991 rendered in Misc. Criminal Application no. 36 of 1991, by the learned Sessions Judge, Mehsana, whereby his bail application came to be dismissed. ( 2 ) FEW relevant facts : According to the complainant Makwana Jagdish shankar, on 19-9-1991, at about 17-30 hours, when he was sitting near manish pan Centre chit-chatting with some of his friends, the petitioner alongwith other three accused, namely, Salim Hanif, Munna Kherubhai, and Thakore Pravin prajapati, came and picked up a quarrel. In the process, Munnabhai and Pravinbhai gave slaps, as a result of which, the complainant fell down in a pit nearby. According to the complainant, Salim suspected that he was secretly passing the information to the police regarding his alleged illegal activities and as a result of which raids were carried out at his premises. Further according to the complainant, when Salim questioned him about this, he denied the said allegations whereupon the petitioner and his three other associates getting enraged, started assaulting him with the respective weapons like Dharia, knives etc. in their hands. In the process, the petitioner who was armed with Dharia, aimed a blow with it on the head of the complainant which while trying to be warded off by right hand fell on his elbow causing injury; thereafter Salim inflicted razor blows on his two thighs while Munna inflicted knife blows on the left side of his ribs and Thakore Pravinji inflicted knife blows on the right thigh, eyeballs and on the left side of the chest. Thereafter, on the injured complainant raising alarm, the people from the nearby vicinity came running and saved him from further beating and in the meantime all the accused made good their escape with the respective weapons in their hands. Thereafter, on the injured complainant raising alarm, the people from the nearby vicinity came running and saved him from further beating and in the meantime all the accused made good their escape with the respective weapons in their hands. Thereafter, Bhikhubhai Shankarbhai, an elder brother of the injured complainant, came to the place of the incident and removed the injured to the Government Hospital for the treatment, where the complainant came to be recorded at about 20-30 hours. On the basis of the said allegations made in the FIR, the petitioner alongwith three others came to be arrested on the very day. Thereafter, Pathan Nizamuddin @ Munna and two others moved the learned Sessions Judge by filing Misc. Criminal application No. 32 of 1991 for getting themselves enlarged on bail which was allowed by the judgment and the order dated 24-9-1991. Thereafter the petitioner, one of the co-accused, also moved the learned Sessions Judge by filing Misc. Criminal Application No. 35 of 1991, which as stated above, came to be rejected, xxx xxx xxx by an order dated 8-10-1991, giving rise to the present Misc. Criminal Application by the petitioner. ( 3 ) MR. P. M. Thakkar, the learned Advocate for the petitioner has challenged the impugned order rejecting the bail application mainly on the ground that the learned Sessions Judge has passed two inconsistent orders in two separate misc. Criminal Applications arising out of the same set of facts and circumstances by misreading the medical certificate which was common in both the cases. Mr. Thakkar submitted that in an earlier bail application describing the injuries as trivial injuries, the learned Judge granted the bail to three accused, while on the very same medical certificate describing the very injuries as serious injuries the bail application of the petitioner cams to be rejected. Mr. Thakkar in support of this submission has invited attention of this Court to the relevant observations made in para 4 of the impugned judgment, which reads as under :"the learned P. P. Mr. S. C. Shah, after reading police investigation papers has submitted that the injuriss caused to the complainant were of serious nature. Number of injuries have been caused by the accused person, though at present he (injured) is out of danger, but looking to the antecedents and past conduct of the accused, it was emphatically submitted that he should not be releated on bail. Number of injuries have been caused by the accused person, though at present he (injured) is out of danger, but looking to the antecedents and past conduct of the accused, it was emphatically submitted that he should not be releated on bail. " (Emphasis supplied) thereafter, Mr. Thakkar invited attention of this Court to the medical certificate dated 11-9-1991 issused by Dr. Vinay Patel of Shri C. S. Hospital, kalol, wherein 12 incise wound/injuries were shown to have been inflicted on the injured Jagdish who was admitted in the hospital as an Indoor patient on 9-9-1991. Mr. Thakkar further submitted that the very doctor on 23-9- 1991 has issued another certificate stating therein that the injuries caused to jagdish will take about 10 to 12 days to recover. It appeals that thereafter injured Jagdish was discharged from the hospital on 8-10-1991. On the basis of the aforesaid certificate, Mr. Thakkar invited attention of this Court to the order dated 24-9-1991 passed by the very same learned Sessions Judge just 15 days before the impugned order under challenge came to be passed, wherein para 2, it has been observed as under :". . . BUT when injuries caused to the complainant were trivial in nature and when further since he is discharged from the hospital and he being out of the danger, there is no reason to keep the accused in jail any further. " (Emphasis supplied) on the basis of the above Mr. Thakkar further submitted that it is indeed quite strange, surprising and shocking too that the injuries noted in the same medical certificate came to be viewed and described as trivial in one case and serious in another. Mr. Thakkar still further submitted that for the reasons best known to the learned P. P. while making the submissions before the learned Sessions Judge in Misc. Criminal Application No. 32 of 1991 filed by Pathan Nizamuddin @ Munnabhai and two others, the offence was somehow toned down and minimised by saying that "on seeing the medical certificate, the injuries to the complainant were trivial (though the respondents were alleged to have been armed with razor and knife and had caused many serious injuries) and ultimately came to be released on bail by an order dated 24- 6-1991. As against this, quite surprisingly, on the basis of the very same set of facts and circumstances and the very same medical certificate, the petitioner, one of the co-accused, is refused bail stating that the medical certificate discloses serious injuries to the complainant. This, according to Mr. Thakkar, is quite an irreconcilable situation. No doubt, the learned Judge has also relied upon certain criminal antecedents of the petitioner while rejecting the bail application by observing that the petitioner was a person who had no respect for the law. But the submission of Mr. Thakkar is that there is nothing on the record to indicate as to what has actually weighed upon the mind of the learned Judge while rejecting the bail application. Whether it was a number and seriousness of injuries, as relied upon by the learned Judge or whether it was the previous criminal antecedents of the petitioner ? Mr. Thakkar posed yet another question by inquiring whether the learned Judge would have rejected the bail application of the petitioner had it been submitted to him that the injuries caused to the complainant were trivial as it was done in the earlier case ? or whether the learned Judge would have granted the bail to the three other co-accused in Misc. Criminal Application No. 32 of 1991 had it been pointed out to him that they were armed with razor and knives and has caused as many as. 2 serious injuries ? On the basis of the above submissions, it was finally urged by Mr. Thakkar that since the misreading of the medical certificate was on face of it illegal, improper and unjust, the impugned order rejecting the bail application deserves to be quashed and set aside and that the petitioner be ordered to be released on bail. ( 4 ) NOW undoubtedly, it is true that in two judgments dt. 24-9-1991 and 8-10-1991, apparently some mistake has crept in in the matter of describing the nature of injuries in respect of the very same injured person by referring and relying upon the very same medical certificate while deciding the bail application of the petitioner. In earlier judgment dated 24-9-1991, when the three co-accused came to be released on bail, the injuries came to be described as trivial injuries while subsequently, in judgment dated 8-10-1991, the very same injuries have been described as serious injuries. In earlier judgment dated 24-9-1991, when the three co-accused came to be released on bail, the injuries came to be described as trivial injuries while subsequently, in judgment dated 8-10-1991, the very same injuries have been described as serious injuries. The question that arises under the circumstances is as to how such a mistake came to take place ? The medical certificate in question was produced before this Court, however, on persual of it, at this stage, it is indeed too difficult to say as to how and by whom the mistake in question came to take place. At this stage, Mr. Thakkar further submitted that the grievance now he was making may not be viewed in a narrow and limited perspective, namely, that the petitioner is refused bail but as a citizen also, he feel that in overall public interest such avoidable mistakes are required to be strictly and promptly taken care of by drawing attention of all concerned involved in the process, viz. , the Investigating Officer, the Public Prosecutor and the Court, by furnishing some useful guidelines with a view to see that no such illegal, unjust orders either refusing or granting the bail are passed for want to adequate material on the record. ( 5 ) AT the very outset, it may be stated that the submissions made by mr. Thakkar have considerable force and merit serious consideration. Of course, as stated above, it is indeed too difficult at this stage to say definitely as to how, why, under what circumstances, and at whose instance, the aforesaid mistake in describing the injuries in two separate applications came to take place. One is simply left to guessing only, as it appears that the said mistake could as well be due to some honest, bona fide and inadvertent mistake by any of the persons involved in presenting and deciding the bail application, that is to say, quite possibly, in the first instance, the said mistake came to be committed either by the learned P. P. while taking the instructions from the Investigating Officer or in the second instance, thereafter, while reading the contents of the medical certificate before the Court, or in the third instance, either while taking down the notes on the relevant points of the arguments by the learned Judge, or in the fourth instance, while ultimately dictating the impugned judgment and order. Such type of inadvertent, bona fide mistakes, if little more care was taken could certainly have been avoided. It is indeed not difficult to appreciate that the resultant impact of such mistakes being quite serious and far reaching, this Court feels that in overall interest of justice, all the concerned involved in the bail proceedings, namely, the Investigating officer, the learned P. P. and the concerned Court are required to be reminded of their duties and called upon to exercise little more care and circumspection while giving, taking instructions and arguing the matter and, by the Court while taking down the notes and dictating the judgment. We certainly cannot be oblivious to the fact that granting or refusing of the bail directly affects the very core of the liberty of the citizen on the one hand and the law and order situation in the society on the other, and therefore, maximum possible care is required to be taken at all levels beginning from the grass-root level of the investigating agency and the learned P. Ps. On persual of the R and P of this case, it appears that the P. S. I. R. V. Nandasan has filed one short affidavit Exh. 4 opposing the bail application of the petitioner-accused. It also appeals that except certain criminal antecedents and cases registered thereunder against the petitioner, no other material particulars connecting him with the alleged offences showing the gravity and seriousness of the offence have been set out. No doubt, in deciding the bail application, reference to the criminal antecedents and cases filed against the accused are of quite some importance being of very great assistance to the Court in appreciating and judging the tendency of the accused concerned so as to decide whether he would remain law-abiding or would be abusing his liberty in the event of he being so released on bail. But then, that circumstance standing by itself in absence of any other equally important material set of circumstances brought on the record may not render the desired assistance to the Court in deciding the bail application justly and properly. But then, that circumstance standing by itself in absence of any other equally important material set of circumstances brought on the record may not render the desired assistance to the Court in deciding the bail application justly and properly. Now as to what indeed exactly are those particulars, the consideration of which are required to be brought on the record and thereby to the notice of the Court by the concerned Investigating Officer filing the counter-affidavit are in fact broadly settled and streamlined by several pronouncements of the various Courts. To briefly recapitulate the same, they are - (i) the nature of crime, the gravity and seriousness of this same; (ii) the nature of evidence (whether direct or circumstantial) in support of the accusations levelled against the accused; (iii) the nature of charge and the possible consequential punishments; (iv) in event of the bail being granted, likelihood of the concerned accused abusing his liberty by either : (a) repeating the same and/or similar offences; and/or (b) tampering with the prosecution evidence and/or (c) jumping the bail; (v) socio-geographical circumstances and some likelihood of desparate repraisal and retaliation by opponents jeopardising the very safety and the life of the accused himself and releasing further fresh waves of lawlessness in the society; (vi) the criminal antecedents, if any and; (vii) the consideration of the overall public interest. Thus, while filing the counter-affidavit, the investigating Officer must be alive to all these material aspects of bail in order to see that he can effectively bring on the record the relevant material which is needed utmost to satisfy the Court for rejecting the bail application, if indeed the same is available on the record. As stated above, the counter-affidavit Exh. 4 filed by the Investigating Officer does not whisper even a word more than merely referring to some criminal antecedents and resultant cases filed against the petitioner. It is true that FIR does disclose some overacts of the petitioner and other accused persons, but to what extent the same were corroborated by the medical evidence on the record nothing has been shown in the counter-affidavit filed by the Investigating officer. It is true that FIR does disclose some overacts of the petitioner and other accused persons, but to what extent the same were corroborated by the medical evidence on the record nothing has been shown in the counter-affidavit filed by the Investigating officer. It appears that both the Investigating Officer and the Public Prosecutor have blissfully rest contended merely with the oral submissions in respect of other things and it is only because of this, perhaps that due to some communication gap between the Investigating Officer, Public Prosecutor and the Court concerned that the mistake alleged inadvertently appears to have crept in the impugned judgment while deciding the present bail application. ( 6 ) INCIDENTALLY, it may also be pointed out that it is not in this case only that some mistake has crept in while deciding the bail application, as in fact we are coming across number of such cases these days wherein for whatever reason the bail applications are decided either without any counter-affidavit by the Investigation Officer, or if at all some such affidavits are filed, the same are so cursory which brings nothing substantial on the record and thereby fails to render the desired assistance to the Court while deciding the bail application. Sometimes, it may be so because of the pressure of work and the paucity of time that the public Prosecutor attending the matter and/or the Investigating Officer instructing him has. Bat this indeed can hardly said to be a valid and reasonable excuse. Rather this Court is of the view that ordinarily in every case wherein the accused is alleged to have committed serious nonbailable offences, no Court as a matter of practice should take upon itself the risk and endeavour to decide the bail application without taking on record the available necessary material collected during the course of the investigation, connecting the accused with the crime by way of a counter-affidavit filed by the Investigating Officer. As a matter fact, the simple question is how indeed any bail application could ever be justly decided without something which is being opposed by the othereside and brought on the record? The grounds of opposing the bail application are therefore ordinarily must be brought on record by setting out the relevant details. As a matter fact, the simple question is how indeed any bail application could ever be justly decided without something which is being opposed by the othereside and brought on the record? The grounds of opposing the bail application are therefore ordinarily must be brought on record by setting out the relevant details. Cases are not unknown wherein sometimes some Public Prosecutors on the basis of some oral instructions and sometimes by cursory perusal of the investigation papers, make submissions before the Court in bail applications. Many a times, a possibility cannot be ruled out where in absence of Investigating Officer in charge of the investigation, some other police Officer who is none to well conversant with the facts relating to the investigation, appears to give instructions to the Public Prosecutor and who accepting the same as true and correct makes submissions before the Court opposing the bail applications. Under such circumstances, sometimes, the mistakes are bound to crept in because of some honest communication gap between the investigation material available on the record and the agency through which it is placed before the Public Prosecutor and thereafter before the concerned Court. In this way, many a times, this sort of perfunctory way of giving instructions to the Public Prosecutor, and the Public Prosecutor in his turn passing it on to the Court is quite risky and hazardous for the simple reason that due to some such inadvertent mistakes in placing the correct facts before the Court, some hardcore criminals get out of the prison and the innocent citizen languish behind the prison till the trial is over. This in turn indeed sadly reflects upon the efficiency of the Investigating Officer, Public Prosecutor and the credibility of the administration of justice which ultimately boomrangs upon the law and order situation in the society. In order to meet with such piquant and undesirable eventualities, this Court is of the opinion that all Criminal Courts before which the bail applications are filed pending the investigation or thereafter even must necessarily see to it that the same is not disposed of in hot hurry without taking on record, as far as possible, the counter-affidavit of the Investigating Officer pinning him down as far as possible with the record of the investigation papers, which in turn may help the Court in deciding the said application in proper perspective. As we know, the criminal justice is a joint venture of the Investigating Officer, Court, Public Prosecutor, and the defence Lawyer. Accordingly, in the first instance, it is the duty of the concerned Investigating officer and then the P. P. and also of the concerned Court to see that the material collected during the course of the investigation is adequately brought on the record by filing proper counter-affidavit before the bail application is decided. Sometimes, in cases wherein the investigation is in progress, it is quite understandable that the Investigation Officer at that stage may not like to disclose the names of the witnesses as the same may as well create number of hurdles and problems in the way of further investigation and which may sometimes ultimately prejudice the investigation and defeat the very ends of justice. Under such circumstances, without even naming the witnesses, evidence by way of the statements in the said regard can certainly be briefly reflected in counter-affidavit by the Investigating Officer. It is a matter of common knowledge that in some important cases, the Investigating Officer do take desired care and pains in carrying out the copy-book investigation of the case and on the basis of the same, also file comprehensive counter-affidavits while opposing the bail applications, but such care and concern though highly desirable and necessary, is not always ordinarily exhibited in all cases, may be. ; as stated above because of the very many reasons including pressure of work and paucity of time, adequate staff, etc. etc. This simply is not proper. In the opinion of this Court, every serious offence under I. P. C. or for that purpose under any special Acts wherein the accused prefers the bail application, if the same is not properly opposed and the accused is released on bail, the same ultimately demoralizes not only the police administration, as it also sometimes adversely affects the safety and security of the members of the aggrieved family and overall law and order situation in the society, giving the accused unjustifiable upper-hand. Such an undesirable situation needs to be avoided at once and at any rate by taking special care and effective measures. Thus, the urgency and importance of the comprehensive counter-affidavit while opposing the bail application cannot be ignored or under-estimated. Such an undesirable situation needs to be avoided at once and at any rate by taking special care and effective measures. Thus, the urgency and importance of the comprehensive counter-affidavit while opposing the bail application cannot be ignored or under-estimated. Accordingly, it is highly desirable that the concerned Superintendent of Police and/or for that purpose any other responsible Police Officer entrusted with the supervision of the investigation of the case as well as the learned P. P. incharge of the bail application is made duty bound to see to it that proper counter affidavit highlighting the material aspects of the case is filed before the Court by the investigating Officer incharge of the case. ( 7 ) NOW of course, may be slightly unusual, but at the same time none-the-less less important is the fact that taking into consideration the lesson from the facts and circumstances of the present case and the overall gradual deterioration and the falling stanards of taking a desired care in presenting a copy-book comprehensive counter-affidavit, this Court, in overall public interest, feels that the time is quite ripe for some guidelines to be indicated with the help of which the attention of the concerned Investigating Officer and the P. P. can be precisely focussed so as to point out what would make the comprehensive counter-affidavit which is necessary to be brought on the record of the case for the just decision of the bail application. Accordingly, the said guidelines are neatly streamlined as under : necessary material to be placed on record for opposing the bail application in affidavit by the Investigating Officer : 1. Misc. Cri. Appln. No. 2. C. R. No of Police Station. 3. Name (s) of the accused. 4. Name (s) of the deceased. 5. Name (s) of any other injured person (s ). 6. Date, time and place of incident. 7. Date, time and place of filing FIR. 8. Distance between the scene of offence and Police Station where FIR filed. 9. Name of the informant, whether an eye witness ? 10. Offence alleged. 11. Weapons in the hands of the accused. 12. Part played by accused and injuries caused to the respondents. 13. Who gave fatal blow (s) to the deceased ? 14. Cause of death, whether corroborated by medical evidence on the record ? 15. Which accused injured whom ? 16. Whether corroborated by medical evidence ? 17. 10. Offence alleged. 11. Weapons in the hands of the accused. 12. Part played by accused and injuries caused to the respondents. 13. Who gave fatal blow (s) to the deceased ? 14. Cause of death, whether corroborated by medical evidence on the record ? 15. Which accused injured whom ? 16. Whether corroborated by medical evidence ? 17. Motive for the alleged offence. 18. Number of eye-witnesses/injured witnesses. (1) Statement recorded when ? (2) Whether residing nearby ? (3) If not residing nearby, place of incident, reason for his presence? 19. Witnesses, if any, to corroborate eye-witness (es ). 20. If the accused not identified at the time of the incident, whether identified during Test Identification Parade ? 21. Test Identification Parade held when ? 22. Recovery or discovery of weapons used in commission of offence. (1) Whether blood-stained ? (2) Recovery or discovery of the clothes of accused and whether blood-stained ? 23. Blood origin and group of the deceased/injured. 24. Blood origin and group of accused. 25. Whether dying declaration recorded ? (1) If yes, how many ? (2) Before whom ? (3) Time and place. 26. Whether any cross-case is filed ? If yes, its time and place. Whether informant are of the accused ? 27. Whether any accused received injuries ? If yes, nature of injuries and whether corroborated by medical evidence ? 28. Whether any extra-judicial confession made ? If yes, when before whom ? 29. Whether any confession of the accused recorded under Sec. 164 of the Cri. Pro. Code ? 30. If case of circumstantial evidence : (1) Which witness saw accused and deceased last together ? (2) Motive. (3) Conduct of the accused. (4) Opportunity to commit murder. (5) Whether recovery or discovery of the weapons, and whether blood-stained, blood origin/blood group etc. (6) Whether recovery or discovery of clothes and whether blood-stained, blood origin/group. 31. Whether any of the accused had any criminal antecedents ? 32. Whether investigation is in progress ? 33. Whether charge-sheet filed ? 34. Whether charge is framed ? 35. The probable date of commencement of the trial. (6) Whether recovery or discovery of clothes and whether blood-stained, blood origin/group. 31. Whether any of the accused had any criminal antecedents ? 32. Whether investigation is in progress ? 33. Whether charge-sheet filed ? 34. Whether charge is framed ? 35. The probable date of commencement of the trial. ( 8 ) TO conclude, by way of the gist of the above discussion, it may be stated that in cases whenever bail application is filed before any Court and pursuant thereto the notices are issued to the State, the learned P. P. incharge of the case is better advised to see to it that on the basis of the questionnarie/ guidelines streamlined above, the Investigating Officer is asked to file the counter-affidavit. Accordingly, it will also not be out of the place if the Secretary, home Department; Secretary, Legal Department, both at Gandhinagar, and the director General of Police, Ahmedabad, taking note of the observations made above and the guidelines given in this judgment, give suitable directions to all the Police Stations as well as P. Ps. of the State to maintain printed forms of the questionnaire on the lines suggested above setting out 35 points of information on the basis of which they are supposed to file a proper affidavit in the Court whenever called upon to oppose the bail application. ( 9 ) IN the result, this Misc. Criminal Application is partly allowed. The impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Sessions Judge is hereby quashed and set aside. The applicant would be at liberty to move the learned Sessions Judge by filing fresh bail application, which the learned Judge after considering the same on merits dispose of the same according to law. .