# observance only by the Judicial Magistrates and not by, the Sessions Judges or the Chief

- **Citation:** C.L. No. 125/VIIb-47
- **Court:** Allahabad High Court
- **Decided:** 1977-07-22
- **Case number:** C.L. No. 125/VIIb-47
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/observance-only-by-the-judicial-magistrates-and-not-by-the-sessions-judges-or-163335
- **Pages:** 1

## Text

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.‖