B. P. SINGH, J. ( 1 ) HEARD. MOOL Chandra and Shilpi alias Shilp Kumar, who are being prosecuted for committing the offences under Sections 114, 147, 148,327,308, 302 and 364 IPC P. S. Hapur District Ghaziabad, have directly applied for bail in this Court after their bail application was rejected by the A. C. J. M. Hapur, Ghaziabad. It is alleged that the Courts at Ghaziabad were closed and no one was allowed to enter the Court campus. Prayer has been made to waive the provisions of rule 18 of Chapter XVIII of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1982. The above rule provides that no application for bail shall be entertained unless accompanied by a copy of judgment or order passed by the Sessions Judge on the bail application of the applicant and unless the accused has surrendered except where he has been released on bail after conviction under Section 369 (3) of the Code of Criminal procedure. Rule 18 (3) provides that save in exceptional circumstances no order granting bail shall be made on an application unless notice thereof has been given to the Government Advocate and not less than ten days have elapsed between the giving of such notice and the hearing of such application. ( 2 ) RELIANCE from the side of the applicants has been placed upon the case of Onkar Nath Agarwal v. State1 and the case of Ramesh Chandra Kapil v. Hon ble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad and another2. ( 3 ) IN Onkar Nath Agarwals case, a Full Bench of this Court has held that the Courts have unfettered discretion in the matter of bail under Section 438 Cr. P. C. to be exercised according to exigencies of such case. Thus, a bail under Section 438 Cr. P. C. may be moved in the High Court without the applicant taking recourse to the Court of Sessions. If an accused can move an application directly to the High Court under Section 438 Cr. P. C. without taking recourse to the Court of Session, he can also, in special Circumstances move this court directly for bail under section 439 Cr. If an accused can move an application directly to the High Court under Section 438 Cr. P. C. without taking recourse to the Court of Session, he can also, in special Circumstances move this court directly for bail under section 439 Cr. P. C. ( 4 ) IN Ramesh Chandra Kapils case (supra), a Division Bench of this court has held as follows: The amendment of Sub-rule (3) of Rule 18 of Chapter XVIII of the Rules of Court does not militate against the proviso to Section 439 Cr. P. C. and consequently, is free from the vice of excessive delegation. There is, however, yet another ground on which the validity of the High Court rule must be upheld. The impugned rule does not fetter the jurisdiction of the Court to grant bail on an application earlier than on expiry of ten days between the giving of notice of such application and the hearing thereof. The matter is left to the discretion of the Court and its jurisdiction is therefore, not curtailed. The utility of the Rules framed by the High Court is that they help the Court in regulating its procedure, that they do not impair or abridge the judicial power of jurisdiction of the Court to regulate its own procedure. Clause 3 of sub-rule 2 of Rule 18 of Chapter XVIII of the Rules of Court expressly retains this power of the Court by excluding or relaxing the provision of ten days notice introducing the words save in exceptional circumstances. Thus, on the very language of the Rule, the jurisdiction of the Court is not cut down in the slightest degree. Whenever, the Court is satisfied, it may hear a bail application prior to the expiry often days and the rule in this regard may be waived. It has been rightly left to the discretion of the Court to adopt a proper procedure having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case before it. The general utility of a Rule framed by the High Court is to remove or avoid certain evils and not to curtail the power of the Court lest it may become difficult for the counsel on behalf of the State to collect all the necessary material and there may be discarriage of justice if a bail application is disposed of with undue haste. Substantial rule of prudence is enshrined in Rule 18. Substantial rule of prudence is enshrined in Rule 18. But it did not entranch on the jurisdiction or the powers of the Court as such. Article 225 of the Constitution under which Rules are framed speaks of including any power, to make Rule of Court and to regulate the sitting of the Court. T Thus, this Court has power to waive the condition that an accused applying for bail should first have recourse to the Sessions Judge. The period of ten days notice can also be waived in special circumstances. It may also be noted here that the powers of the Court of Session and the High Court are concurrent under Section 439 Cr. P. C. of course, if the Courts in any Sessions Division are functioning or in case the Courts in the Sessions Division are not functioning but the jurisdiction of that Sessions Division has been transferred to a neighbouring Sessions Division, this Court will not entertain the bail application of an accused from that Sessions Division directly. But in case the Courts in a Sessions Division are not functioning due to lock out or some other reason and the jurisdiction of that Sessions Division has not been transferred to some other Division and when there is no alternative remedy available to an accused, this Court, in special circumstances, can entertain his bail application and can decide the same on merits. ( 5 ) IN the present case, the only role assigned to the applicant Mool Chandra is that he had exhorted his colleagues while the applicant Shilpi alias Shilp Kumar had thrown a brick upon the head of Rajendra. It is also alleged in the F. I. R. that Pappu had fired upon one Kuldeep. It was Kuldeep who succumbed to his injuries. It is not the case in the F. I. R. that Shilpi alias Shilp Kumar assaulted the deceased. ( 6 ) LET the applicants Mool Chandra and Shilpi alias Shilp Kumar involved in Crime No. 382 of 1982 under Sections 114, 147, 148,327, 308. 302 and 364 IPC P. S. Hapur District Ghaziabad be released on bail provided each of the applicants furnishes personal bonds and two sureties each to the satisfaction of C. J. M. Ghaziabad. Application allowed. .