# the same case and if so in what amount

- **Citation:** C.L. No. 82/VIIb-47
- **Court:** Allahabad High Court
- **Decided:** 1972-08-08
- **Case number:** C.L. No. 82/VIIb-47
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/the-same-case-and-if-so-in-what-amount-163345
- **Pages:** 2

## Text

232
(i)
The surety may be required to file an affidavit showing details of his

property, movable and immovable, and its value indicating clearly

whether he has stood surety in any other case or for any other accused in

the same case and if so in what amount.
(ii)
When a lawyer appearing for the accused in the case verifies the status of

the surety in any amount, further verification may not be insisted upon.
(iii)
The practice of sending surety bonds to Tahsil for verification is to be

discontinued forthwith.
C.L. No. 82/VIIb-47, dated 8th August, 1972

Directions regarding verification of surety bonds should be complied with
strictly. It is the personal responsibility of District Judges to see that the directions are
carried out in true spirit
C.L. No.145/VIIb-47 , dated 19th December, 1978

Likewise, before releasing an accused on bail a declaration should be obtained
from the surety to the effect that, apart from the case in which he is standing as a surety,
he has not stood as a surety in any other case or otherwise he should indicate in which
and in how many other cases and for which accused person or persons he has stood
surety.
C.L. No. 12/VIIb-47 , dated 17th January, 1978

It encloses a copy of confidential Circular Letter No. 25022/99/77-F, I, dated 27th
September, 1977, from Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi. This
letter says that it would not be desirable to accept the passport of a foreigner as surety for
any purpose even when a foreigner offers himself to stand guarantee for any other
foreigner for any purpose.
 (v)
Young criminals
C.L. No. 77/IVh-36 , dated 28th May, 1976
Young criminals in the age group of 16 to 21 who are unable to furnish bail after
passing of bail order may be entrusted to the Probation Officer (Government have been
moved to post a Probation Officer in each district and also to amend suitably the First
Offenders Probation Act and Section 360, Cr.P.C., 1973).
(vi)
Bail in cases under Defence of India Rules, 1971
C.L. No. 19 , dated 31st January, 1975

Bail in cases under the Defence of India Rules should be granted only within the
frame-work of the limitations imposed by clause (b) of rule 184 of the Defence of India
Rules, 1971.
(vii)
Compliance of Court's order dated 8.2.90 passed in Crl. Misc. Bail
Application Nor. 1704 of 1990 Guddu v. State of U.P. arising out of Case
Crime No.492 of 1989, U/Ss. 379/411 I.P.C., P.S., Mutthiganj, District
Allahabad.
233
G.L.No. 2296 dated February 28,1990.
I am directed to enclose herewith a copy of the Court's order dated 8.2.90 for
guidance and also to see that the provision of Juvenile Justice Act are followed strictly
and according to the spirit and mandate of the Act.
(viii) Grant of bail in the cases triable by the Special Chief Judicial Magistrates,
Allahabad and Kanpur
C.L.No. 81/Admn. (A) dated August 17,1990
I am directed to say that the two Special Courts of Chief Judicial Magistrate, one
at Allahabad and the other at Kanpur were established for the trial of 'economic offences'
under the specified 12 Central Acts including Customs Act, 1962. The territorial
jurisdiction of these two special courts was defined by the U .P .Government Notification
No. 1764/VII-A.M. 707/87, dated 7th August, 1987. It has been brought to the notice of
the Court that the Chief Judicial Magistrates/Judicial Magistrates of other districts not
empowered to try the case while granting first remand to the accused under the aforesaid
Central Acts grant interim bail to the accused and order their release without
ensuring/verifying their correct identity and reliability of the sureties. In a number of
cases the bail bonds are not even sent to the said courts of Special Chief Judicial
Magistrates empowered to try the accused with the result the accused of such offences
never turn up for trial. In the absence of bail bonds these Special Courts can also not take
any step for their arrest.
It has also come to the notice of the Court that one Chief Judicial Magistrate
granted bail to an accused under Customs Act when the accused had already been
produced before the Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Allahabad and the remand had
also been granted by him. Grant of bail by such Magistrate after first remand was highly
improper. The Court after considering the matter is of the view that Judicial Magistrates,
First Class/Chief Judicial Magistrates not empowered to try the accused can exercise
their discretionary powers under Section 187 of the Code of Criminal Procedure or any
other law for the time being in force in a judicial manner for cogent reasons but they
cannot grant bail to an accused after he has been produced before the Special Chief
Judicial Magistrate having jurisdiction to try the case.
With regard to the acceptance of the surety bonds, the attention is drawn towards
circular Letter No. 24/VII -B-47 dated 25.2.76 and it is directed that in such 'Economic
Offences' under the aforesaid 12 Central Acts, Judicial Magistrates should ascertain
correct identity of the accused and the sureties before issuing the release order and
whenever an accused is granted bail a copy of such order along with bail bonds and other
necessary papers invariably be sent to the Special Chief Judicial Magistrate having
jurisdiction to try the case. I am, therefore, to request you kindly to bring the contents of
this circular letter to the notice of all the Judicial Migistrates/Chief Judicial Magistrates
working under your administrative control and ensure its compliance. I am to add that it
will be your personal responsibility to see that the directions given herein are carried out
in true spirit.

 For perusal of order see, Guddu v. State of U.P., 1991 All LJ 457.