P. S. MISHRA, C. J.

( 1 ) PETITIONER, a practising advocate at Hyderabad, has filed the instant petition and questioned the validity of the Circular bearing Roc. No. 5971/op. Cell/ 96, dated 27-12-1996, which has been issued by this Court to regulate the appearance of the advocate on behalf of the accused seeking either bail or making any other application. The offending parts of the circular are culled out in the petition, which, inter alia, introduced the requirements that (1) Memo of appearance shall be signed by the accused and attested by the competent prison officer, if he is in judicial custody. (2 ). . . . . . . . . (3) Bail applications shall not be entertained by the Court unless F. I. R. and/or remand report is filed before it. (4) For applications under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure also first Information Report shall be filed along with the bail applications. (5 ). . . . . . . . (6 ). . . . . . . . (7) No bail application shall be heard unless the same is served on the Public prosecutor. (8) The above norms also apply for applications for suspension of sentence and bails in criminal appeals/revisions.

( 2 ) PETITIONER has made certain high sounding statements in the petition such as -the right to life and liberty is a fundamental right guaranteed by Article 21 of the constitution of India and the same cannot be denied to a person except in accordance with law, that Chapter 33 of the Code of Criminal procedure, 1973 deals with the provisions of bail and bonds and that none of the Sections in the Chapter contemplate the filing or moving a bail application before a Court, that the Court itself can grant bail without there being any application for grant of bail, that filing of a bail application is not compulsory, that it is always open to the Court to enlarge the accused on bail without there being any bail application, that even the accused can plead orally for bail and the Court shall have to consider his request for bail without such request being reduced to writing, etc. , and listed, which, according to him, are practical problems to comply with the above, stating : the guideline No. 1 is that the Memo of appearance should be signed by the accused and attested by the competent prison officer while he is in judicial custody. If this condition is to be followed, the accused cannot approach a Court of law if the jail authorities do not sign the memo of appearance and this is totally unacceptable to the law. The accused can be made to slog in prison if the jail authorities refuse to attest the. signatures. The jail authorities being under the control of executive of the State, the executive can always play with the lives of people especially in the politically foisted cases. The persons are virtually forced to be at the mercy of the executive which is not the law prevailing. Therefore, this guideline has to be struck down. The guideline No. 2 is that no bail application should be entertained without the F. I. R. and/or remand report. I submit that the accused cannot always be in possession of the copy of the F. I. R. In fect, to take a copy off. I. R. , even for an advocate, it takes nearly two days. I submit that the police authorities do not furnish a copy of F. I. R. or the remand report to the accused. When this is the case to expect the bail application to be along with all these things, it is almost like driving the people to be at the mercy of the police authorities/lower Court officials. I submit that the hundreds of Courts in the State of a. P. do not have xerox machines and to take a certified copy it takes in normal course, at least one week. Even in Criminal courts at Nampally where a xerox machine is available, to take a copy one has to wait atleast for two days. I submit quite a few cases which are registered by the police, authorities are false cases registered op account of severe influences and a person who is falsely implicated in these cases has to suffer and forego his fundamenta

Click Here to Read the rest of this document