# 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-163336 - **Pages:** 2 ## 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.‖ 231 (iv) Acceptance and verification of surety bonds C.L. No. 78/VIIb-47, dated 21st May, 1971 and C.L. NO. 91/VIIb-47 dated 10th June, 1974 The litigant public should have sufficient time before hand for taking necessary steps to produce sureties. Magistrates can fix an amount up to which surety bonds may be accepted provisionally without verification or when the status of sureties are verified by the lawyer based on his personal knowledge. Non-acceptance of verification should be specified in the order of the Magistrate. Magistrates, however, will be justified not to accept even provisionally the verification by such legal practitioners, who have in spite of 2 or 3 warnings by the Magistrates been verifying surety bonds of persons, whose addresses contained in the bonds were found to be either fictitious or they were of dead persons. Magistrates can accept surety bonds provisionally considering only the status with reference to the immovable properties possessed by the sureties. C.L. No. 93/VII-b-47 , dated 22nd July, 1975 1. As far as possible the status of sureties should be verified by presiding officers themselves on the basis of documentary evidence produced in this behalf and supported by affidavits of sureties. 2. Receipts of income-tax, sales-tax, and house tax etc. and a certificate, receipt or any other document from Municipal Board or Notified area showing the financial status of a surety may be accepted in proof of status. 3. Receipts for payment of land revenue and extracts of Khataunis etc., proving the title of a surety to the land supported by his affidavits that the land in respect of which the land revenue has been paid by him or to which the extracts of Khatauni relate continues to be in his possession unencumbered, may be admitted as good proof of status. 4. The surety should disclose in his affidavit whether he has stood surety for any other accused in the same case or other case or cases and, if so, whether the surety bonds in question are still in force. C.L. No. 3/VIIb-47 , dated 17th January, 1972 With regard to the acceptance of surety bonds, the Presiding Officers should exercise their discretion judicially, i.e., when the surety files a detailed affidavit as to his assets, movable and immovable, and it is found that the surety is reliable, the bond can be accepted without reference to the Tahsil. Where a reference to Tahsil is considered necessary steps should be taken that there is no corruption and the reports of the Tahsil should be judged on merit and the Magistrates should not be unduly moved by the report. Where a false affidavit has been filed or an incorrect report is received from the Tahsil, severe action should be taken. C.L. No. 24/VIIb-47 , dated 25th February, 1976 For verification of surety bonds the following directions are issued in continuation of C.L. No. 3, dated 17th January, 1972: