S. S. SHARMA, J. ( 1 ) THIS order shall also govern the disposal of Misc. Criminal Case No. 2658 of 1985. ( 2 ) PETITIONER Rajendra Prasad who describes himself to be the brother of deceased Mahendra Kumar has filed this revision for cancellation of bail granted to non-applicants No. 1 to 12 by the court below. Misc. Criminal Case No. 2658 of 1985 is a petition by the State for the same purpose. ( 3 ) THE twelve non-applicants and others had been arrested for the murder of one Mahendra Kumar, allegedly committed on 14. 4. 1985 in village Leeti. Six of the accused had submitted an application on 29. 4. 1985, under section 439 Criminal Procedure Code, in the High Court which was registered as Misc. Criminal Case No. 1138 of 1985. Out of the present N. As. non-applicants Jhumaklal, Nukba alias Nokhelal, 5/0. Devidm Kewar, Indra Prasad (Indnilal) s/o. Devidin and Sewak (Sewa) s/o Chhimadhar Kewat were applicants in Misc. Criminal Case No. 1138 of 1985. Learned Judge by his order dated 21. 6. 1985 rejected the application of the accused who were the applicants in that case. On behalf of accused Sewa s/o. Chhimadhar Kewat an application for bail had been submitted even in the Court below on 15. 5. 1985. His application was allowed by the court below by order dates 25. 5. 1985 in B. A. case No. 896 of 1985. The order dated 21. 6. 1985 of the learned Judge in Misc. Criminal Case No. 1138 of 1985 indicated that this fact was urged before the learned Judge. What has been mentioned in the order is that learned counsel submitted that one of the applicants i. e. Sewak, applicant No. 2 has been released by the Sessions Judge. I am not aware of the ground on which Sewak has been released on bail, and therefore, I cannot make any comment on the order releasing him on bail. There is prima facie case of murder against the applicants and they do not deserve to be enlarged on bail. The application is, therefore, dismissed. ( 4 ) THE record of Misc. Criminal Case No. 726 of 1985 of the court below is application for bail under section 439 Criminal Procedure Code submitted by seven accused. There is prima facie case of murder against the applicants and they do not deserve to be enlarged on bail. The application is, therefore, dismissed. ( 4 ) THE record of Misc. Criminal Case No. 726 of 1985 of the court below is application for bail under section 439 Criminal Procedure Code submitted by seven accused. Out of these seven applicants, Shankerlal s/o Mannu Lal, Sukhlal s/o Mannulal, Pooran s/o Mannu Lal and Kodilal (Kudia) s/o Achchhelal are the non-applicants in the present two petitions. The First Additional Sessions Judge in his order dated 6. 5. 1985 allowed the application with regard to Kodilal and Madan alias Munna. With regard to the other applicants, the application was dismissed as not pressed. ( 5 ) IN Bail Application No. 1545 of 1985 there were eight applicants. Out of these eight applicants, Pooranlal s/o Mannulal, Shanker Lal s/o Marinulal, Jhumaklal s/o Samailal, Sukhlal s/o Munnulal and Ramsewak s/o Pardesi Kol are the non- applicants in the present two petitions. ( 6 ) IN Bail Application Case No. 1557 of 1985 Gaya Prasad was the sole applicant. By order dated 6. 8. 1965, another B. A. Case No. 1569 was also decided and accused Gaya Prasad, Nokhelal, Samai and Indra were ordered to be released on bail. ( 7 ) FROM what had been stated above a very sad state of affairs emerges. For most of accused, against whom the High Court in Misc. Criminal Case No. 1138 of 1985 by its order dated 21. 6. 1985 found that there was prima facie evidence and they did not deserve to be released on bail, the court below without giving any reasons or circumstances which may have arisen subsequently, released them on bail within about two months of the order of the High Court. Yet another thing that emerges is that the application of some of the accused which were earlier rejected by one on the other Court, below was not pressed or otherwise, were subsequently allowed. In none of these orders whereby some of the accused were later on ordered to be released on bail, is there a reference or mention of the earlier bail application or applications having been rejected. It has been noticed that frequency of such situations is on the increase. In none of these orders whereby some of the accused were later on ordered to be released on bail, is there a reference or mention of the earlier bail application or applications having been rejected. It has been noticed that frequency of such situations is on the increase. Some method has, therefore, to be evolved to avoid at- least such conflicting situations that the court below grants the prayer for bail and the High Court rejects saying that they do not deserve to be released on bail. The counsel for the accused owe a duty to the Court to inform whether any earlier application for bail was rejected by the court and whether any other application of the same accused was pending. ( 8 ) THE responsibility in that behalf is greater on the prosecution. The practice as noticed is that for hearing of the bail applications in the court below or in the High Court the Government Pleader! Additional Government Pleader or the Government Advocate/additional Government Advocate/dy. Government Advocate as the case may be gets the investigation case diary from the concerned Police Station. Any such Government counsel appearing for the State in any such application for bail in the court below or in the High Court would thus know the case number of the application, the court wherein it is heard, the name or the names of the accused and the order passed on that application. When such a requisition goes for the investigation case diary either for the hearing of the bail application in the court below or in the High Court the S. H. O. of that Police Station is supposed to know about it and thus with further slightest effort he can also know all the aforesaid particulars. If these particulars find place on papers attached to the investigation case diary, any counsel appearing for the State would at least be in a position to point out to the court at the time of hearing the result of the earlier bail application of that accused or the other accused. It. would be in fitness of things that the court below while hearing an application for bail after questioning both the counsel in this behalf mentions the information supplied in his order. It. would be in fitness of things that the court below while hearing an application for bail after questioning both the counsel in this behalf mentions the information supplied in his order. Needless to say that more often the orders passed on the earlier application or applications of the same accused or even of the co-accused are relevant for consideration while dealing with an application for bail of some or the other accused in the same case. ( 9 ) WHILE considering an application for bail, particularly under section 439 Criminal Procedure Code the court below besides other factors takes into account the allegations against the accused and the evidence collected in support of those allegations. This has to be done to see whether there is a prima facie case against the accused. No doubt at this stage the court has not to give any finding as such one way or the other, but the order should briefly state the allegations and the evidence collected in support thereof. If that is done, it would not only show that the court below has considered the facts, but if either the State or the accused as the case may be approaches the High Court against that order, the High Court would have the brief facts and the evidence before it in the copy of the impugned order even at the admission stage. ( 10 ) TWO of the accused in B. A. case No. 126 of 1985 by order dated 6. 5. 1985 modified on 7. 5. 1985, were released on bail mainly on the ground that their age was about 17 to 18 years. By order dated 25. 5. 1985 in B. A. Case No. 896 of 1985, an accused was released on bail because his name did not appear fn the FIR. which was lodged by the brother of the deceased who was not an eye-witness and his name did not appear in the statements of the eye-witnesses. In the order dated 5. 8. 1985, the court below mentions that Gullu, Jawahar, Mangal and Pooran have been named in FIR. thereafter some witnesses on being summoned by the police, gave their statements. Gullus application was rejected. Application of Jawahar and Mangal was dismissed as not pressed. However, Pooran and some others were ordered to be released on bail. Though the FIR. 8. 1985, the court below mentions that Gullu, Jawahar, Mangal and Pooran have been named in FIR. thereafter some witnesses on being summoned by the police, gave their statements. Gullus application was rejected. Application of Jawahar and Mangal was dismissed as not pressed. However, Pooran and some others were ordered to be released on bail. Though the FIR. was not by an eye-witness but as it appears from the order, the mention of names of some accused had weighed with the learned Judge, and if so, there is nothing in the order to show that any distinction between Jawahars case and the case of other three. If the mention of the names of the accused in the police statements of eye-witnesses were to be considered, their names do find place in those statements. So far as the order dated 6. 8. 1985 passed in B. A. Case No. 1557 is concerned all that it says is Arguments heard. Diary seen looking to the evidence the applicant Gaya Prasad Kukkha alias Nokhelal Samai and Inda be released on bail It is thus apparent that in the order the learned Judge did not even precisely refer as to what the prosecution case was and what evidence was collected in support thereof. Here I may again mention that while dealing with a bail application the court has not to decide the matter in merits. ( 11 ) SO far as the merits are concerned, office it would be to refer to the order dated 21. 6. 1985 of this court in Misc. Criminal Case No. 1138 of 1985 in which some of the present non-applicants were the applicants. However, in the Misc. Criminal Case filed on behalf of the state, copies of three roznamcha reports of different dates have been filed to demonstrate that some of the accused had threatened the witnesses. The reports indicate that the police did not take any action on those reports. No other material has been placed to support these reports. In the circumstances, these reports are of no avail to the state. ( 12 ) DURING the hearing of these revisions it was pointed out that the prosecution evidence was to commence from a date within a week there from. The principles of grant of bail and its cancellation stand on a different footing. However, the main ground in favour of the N. As. ( 12 ) DURING the hearing of these revisions it was pointed out that the prosecution evidence was to commence from a date within a week there from. The principles of grant of bail and its cancellation stand on a different footing. However, the main ground in favour of the N. As. in these cases is that the trial was to commence within a week from the time when the arguments were heard and not intervening circumstances were pointed out which could in spite thereof persuade me to cancel the bail of the non-applicants, though something could be said against the legality and propriety of the impugned orders, particularly because of this courts aforesaid order dated 21. 6. 1985. Thus on a totality of the circumstances, I am not inclined to allow this revision and the Misc. Criminal Case No. 2658 of 1985 and cancel the bail of the non applicants. ( 13 ) CONSEQUENTLY, this revision as also the Misc. Criminal Case No. 2658 of 1985 (state of Madhya Pradesh v. Madan alias Munna 5/0. Deenwant Kachi and others are hereby dismissed. Revision dismissed. Misc. Cri. C. No. 2658 of 1985 State of Madhya Pradesh v. Madan alias Munna sb. Deenwant Kachi and others. ORDER For the reasons mentioned in the order passed today in Criminal Revision No. 483 of 1985 (Rajendra Prasad son of Munnilal Brahmin v. Madan alias Munna and others), this petition is hereby dismissed. .