SHIVNARAYAN Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application u/s. 438 CrPC in connection with Crime No 654/02 for the offence punishable u/s. 420,467,468,471 of the IPC. The contention of the learned counsel for the applicant is that he is a practising lawyer in Tehsil Tarana, Distt. Ujjain. He submits that he has identified the surety on the basis of his photographs affixed on the affidavit.

(2.) THE applicant should not have identified the surety when he himself was not knowing him. It is also contended by the counsel for the applicant that Courts are compelling advocates to identify the surety at the time of verification of bail papers and surety papers. If this is so, then this practice must be depricated. It is not the job of the advocates to identify the surety or the accused persons nor the Court can compel them for the same. If the advocates are identifying the surety or the accused persons, in the Court, then it would be at their own risk. If the Courts are compelling them then it is the duty of the counsel to report this matter to the Bar Council as well as the District Judge.

(3.) IT is made clear that after filing of charge -sheet, the applicant may apply for regular bail. Registry is directed to circulate the copy of this order among all the Districts Sessions Judges who will take care of the situation prevailing in the Districts as well as Tehsil places.