# for his reliability

- **Citation:** C.L. No. 64/VIIIh-23
- **Court:** Allahabad High Court
- **Decided:** 1979-06-13
- **Case number:** C.L. No. 64/VIIIh-23
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/for-his-reliability-163333
- **Pages:** 2

## Text

229
6.
the identity of responsible members of the community who would vouch
for his reliability,
7.
the nature of the offence charged and the apparent probability of
conviction and the likely sentence in so far as these factors are relevant to
the risk of non appearance and ,
8.
any other factors indicating the ties of the accused to the community or
bearing on the risk of willful failure to appear.
C.L. No. 64/VIIIh-23 dated 13th June, 1979

Whenever the courts pass orders for bail, the readers should mention the name of
Public Prosecutor, Assistant Public Prosecutor or D.G.C. or A.D.G.C. (Criminal) or
Panel lawyer who do not oppose petitions for bail or admit any material fact pleaded in
the bail petitions benefiting the accused.
C.L. No. 53/VIIb-47/Admn.(G) dated 25th August, 1989

The Court has noticed that the orders passed on a bail application by the Sessions
Court are not tagged with the record of Sessions Trial depriving the Prosecution to take
the benefit of statements given at the time of grant of bail by the defence and at the time
of trial of criminal cases. According to rule 24 of General Rules (Criminal) 1977, every
paper in the case from the information on which cognizance was first taken, up to and
including the warrant received back under section 430 of the Cr.P.C., are the contents of
the record.

Therefore, all the presiding officers are directed to keep on record copies of the
orders passed on bail applications.
(ii)
Refusal of bail by the police
C.L. No. 14/VII-b-47, dated 17th February, 1968

In order to check deliberate refusal of acceptance of bail in a bailable offence by
the investigating Police Officers, though offered by the accused persons, it is necessary
that in cases where the Magistrate finds that there has been an unjustifiable refusal the
matter should be brought to the notice of the Government for necessary action.
(iii)
Bail or parole refused by superior court
C.L. No. 148/VIIIb-47, dated 21st September, 1974
Subordinate courts should grant bail or parole sparingly and only in exceptional
circumstances after the same has been refused by the superior court in cases where;
(1)
a different stage in the proceedings has been reached at which different
considerations arise for the grant or refusal of bail, or
(2)
new grounds appear subsequently which were not available at the time of
the refusal of bail by the superior court and such new grounds make out a
case for the grant of bail.
Requirements of Section 437, Cr.P.C., in such cases, should be fulfilled and
reasons for granting bail or parole should be recorded. Orders of bail in cases beyond the
territorial jurisdiction of the court should not be passed.
230
C.L. No. 125/VIIb-47, dated 22nd July, 1977

The directions contained in paragraph 2 of the aforesaid C.L. were meant for
observance only by the Judicial Magistrates and not by, the Sessions Judges or the Chief
Judicial Magistrates who have been given special power and jurisdiction under the
second proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 81 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973,
in the matter of grant of bail even in cases relating to areas beyond their territorial
jurisdiction. Para 2 of above-mentioned circular stands modified to this extent.
C.L. No. 28/VIIb-47, dated 27th April, 1983

Once bail has been refused to an accused person by a superior court, the inferior
court, even if it technically has the jurisdiction to do so, should grant bail or parole
sparingly and only in exceptional circumstance. Normally, it should be left to the
Superior Court to reconsider the matter. Bail or parole applications may, however, be
entertained by the inferior court even after refusal of bail by the superior court where:-
(i)
a different stage in the proceedings has been reached at which different
considerations arise for the grant or refusal of bail, (for instance, if the
High Court has refused bail at the investigation stage the Sessions Judge
may grant bail at the trial stage, if a case for bail is made out.) or
(ii)
new grounds appear subsequently, which were not available at the time of
the refusal of bail by the superior court, and such new grounds make out a
case for the grant of bail.
The inferior court must in all such cases see that the case fulfils the requirements of
Section 437, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 and should record its reasons for granting
bail or parole.

It has also come to the notice of the Court that in several cases officers, especially
Chief Judicial Magistrates have granted bail in cases arising in territory beyond their
territorial jurisdiction.

In future if any officer is found to have acted without jurisdiction or in
contravention of the provisions of this circular letter, serious notice will be taken by the
Court of such action.
C.L. No. 2934, dated 1st April, 1988

It invites attention of all the Sessions Judges to the case of Kamla Shanker Singh
and another v. State of U.P., 1988 A.Cr.C. 133 decided by Allahabad High Court on
14.12.87. The relevant observation is given below.

―A Session Judge has no doubt a concurrent jurisdiction in the matter of bail u/s
439 Cr.P.C. and is competent to entertain the bail application of accused on fresh
grounds even after the rejection of his bail application by the High Court but the power
has to be exercised by the Sessions Judge in exceptional circumstances. Normally, the
Session Judges should keep their hands off in bail applications, which stand rejected by
the High Court.‖