P. K. MISRA, J. ( 1 ) IN this application for bail under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code), the two accused-petitioners have raised the question of propriety of the non-bailable warrant of arrest issued by the Judicial Magistrate. First Class, Salipur, which were executed outside the jurisdiction of the said Magistrate. ( 2 ) IT is alleged that the petitioner have committed offences under sections 366/307 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as I. P. C. T) which has been registered as G. R. Case No. 215 of 1992 in the file of the J. M. F. C. , Salipur. On the strength of the N. B. Ws. issued by the said Magistrate the two petitioners were arrested by the police office of Badachana police station and thereafter were produced before the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Jaipur. The bail application having been rejected, which was made before the Addi. Sessions Judge, Jaipur under section 81 of the Code. The Addi. Sessions Judge observed that the warrants did not contain the gist of allegations levelled against the accused persons. However, he rejected the bail application as the alleged offences were serious in nature and the case was of the year 1992. ( 3 ) IN this petition before this Court it has been contended that it was the duty of the Magistrate issuing warrant to forward along with the warrant, the substance of the information against the person along with the relevant documents in order to enable the court to deal with the bail application in accordance with section 81 of the Code. Section 78 of the Code reads as follows: 78 Warrant forwarded for execution outside jurisdiction (1) When a warrant is to be executed outside the local Jurisdiction of the Court issuing it, such Court may, instead of directing the warrant to a police officer within its jurisdiction, forward it by post or otherwise to any Executive Magistrate or District Superintendent of Police or Commissioner of Police within the local limits of whose jurisdiction it is to be executed; and the Executive Magistrate or District Superintendent or Commissioner shall endorse his name thereon, and if practicable, cause it to be executed in the manner hereinbefore provided. (2) The Court issuing a warrant under sub-section (1) shall forward along with the warrant the substance of the information against the person to be arrested together with such documents, if any as may be sufficient to enable the Court acting under section 81 to decide whether bail should not be granted to the person. ( 4 ) A bare reading of the aforesaid provision makes it clear that the court issuing warrant of arrest to be executed outside its local jurisdiction should forward along with the warrant the substance of the information against the person to be arrested together with other relevant documents so as to enable the court acting under section 81 of the Code to deal with the matter. In the present case it is evident that except mentioning the sections of offences alleged to have been committed the Magistrate issuing warrant had not forwarded the gist of information nor any other relevant documents. In view of such defective warrant issued by the Magistrate, the petitioners were in fact prejudiced when they moved for bail under section 81 of the Code before the Addi. Sessions Judge. The Addi. Sessions Judge also should not have mechanically rejected the bail application without knowing the nature of the allegations and the materials appearing against the accused persons merely on the ground that the offences were serious in nature. Instead he should have either released the accused persons on interim bail with a direction to them to appear before the concerned Magistrate who had issued the warrant of arrest on a particular date or called for the relevant records and thereafter disposed of the matter on merit. The liberty of a person is very dear and should not have been dealt with in the cavalier manner as has been done in this case by the Magistrate who issued the warrant as well as the Addi. Sessions Judge who dealt with the subsequent application under section 81 of the Code. Be that as it may, it is unnecessary to delve further in the matter. ( 5 ) IN the present case both the accused persons were released on interim bail which is continuing till now. There is no allegation that the accused persons while on interim bail have abused their liberty in any manner. Be that as it may, it is unnecessary to delve further in the matter. ( 5 ) IN the present case both the accused persons were released on interim bail which is continuing till now. There is no allegation that the accused persons while on interim bail have abused their liberty in any manner. I, therefore, direct that the two petitioners on surrendering before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Salipur, in connection with G. R. Case No. 215 of 1992 on or before 16-8-1986 shall be released on bail of Rs. 10,000/- each with two sureties each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned Magistrate. If they do not surrender on or before the date fixed as directed their interim bail bond should be discharged and steps should be taken for their apprehension. Criminal Misc. Case is disposed of. Criminal Misc. Case disposed of. .