JUDGMENT Hon’ble A.P. Sahi, J.—The applicant is facing trial under Sections 379, 411, 420, 467, 468 and 471, I.P.C. The allegation against the applicant is that he had purchased a Pulsar motor-cycle bearing registration No. UP 32-B-A, 5616 about which had lodged an FIR on 27.12.2005 being Case Crime No. 385 of 2005 under Section 379, I.P.C. Police Station-Thakurganj, Lucknow alleging that his motor-cycle had been stolen. The vehicle had been insured with United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and after the final report had been submitted by the police, the applicant received a claim of Rs. 48,000/- from the Insurance Co. on account of loss of the vehicle. 2. The Station House officer, Police Station Aminabad, Lucknow registered an FIR on 13th June, 2007, against the applicant alleging that the applicant continued to be in possession of the said vehicle and that he had lodged a false FIR in order to obtain the claim of Rs. 48,000/-. This FIR was registered as Case Crime No. 144 of 2007. 3. The bail application was rejected by the learned Sessions Judge on 23.6.2007whereafter the applicant has come up before this Court for grant of bail. During the pendency of the case, Sections 379 and 411 have also been added and the applicant has now been charge sheeted in all the Sections as indicated in the FIR coupled with Sections 379 and 411, I.P.C. Learned Counsel for the applicant contends that this bail application be treated also under the aforesaid added Sections as well. 4. When the matter had come up earlier, this Court had called upon the applicant to explain his bonafidies whereupon an affidavit was filed on 10th August, 2007 stating therein that he has already requested the Insurance Co. to get the vehicle released in its favour for which he will have no objection. Another affidavit was filed on 22.9.2007 bringing on record the receipt indicating deposit of Rs. 48,000/- by the applicant before the Insurance Co. which money had been allegedly obtained by the applicant as his claim. 5. Learned Counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant has established his bonafidies by allowing the vehicle to be released in favour of Insurance Co. and also depositing an amount of Rs. 48,000/- before the Insurance Co. 6. 48,000/- by the applicant before the Insurance Co. which money had been allegedly obtained by the applicant as his claim. 5. Learned Counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant has established his bonafidies by allowing the vehicle to be released in favour of Insurance Co. and also depositing an amount of Rs. 48,000/- before the Insurance Co. 6. Before considering the prayer for bail it is necessary to resolve another issue which continues to arise very frequently before the Court when during the pendency of the bail application, the accused is charged under some other Sections as a result whereof prayers are made for grant of bail in added sections as well. Learned A.G.A. Sri R. K. Dwivedi on the previous occasion had cited the decision in the case of Prahlad Singh Bhati, 2001(4) SCC 280 and the case of Hamida v. Rashid, 2007 (58) ACC 577. The Court pointed out to learned A.G.A. that the aforesaid decisions did not squarely apply in the instant case, inasmuch as, here is a case where the bail application has been rejected by the Court below and during the pendency of the bail before this Court two other Sections have been added in which the applicant has been charge sheeted. It was also pointed out that the cases relied upon by the learned A.G.A. related to matters arising out of cases in which the bail application had been allowed and subsequently Sections were added indicating graver offences in which bail was granted. The said procedure came up for scrutiny before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the Supreme Court held that in such cases the accused has to apply before the Court of sessions once the offence falls within the jurisdiction of the Court of Sessions and the Magistrate will have no power to grant bail under the added Sections. In the case of Hamida (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court deprecated the practice of the High Court to entertain such matters under Section 482, Cr.P.C. and issued directions for approaching the Court concerned for grant of bail when Sections involving graver offences have been added later on. In the case of Hamida (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court deprecated the practice of the High Court to entertain such matters under Section 482, Cr.P.C. and issued directions for approaching the Court concerned for grant of bail when Sections involving graver offences have been added later on. The Hon’ble Apex Court insisted that where the offence had been converted into a graver offence, the accused had to undergo the same process and the order of the High Court was set aside with a direction to the accused to approach the appropriate Court for grant of regular bail. 7. The aforesaid cases, therefore, do not squarely apply in the instant case where it is a converse case. Here the applicant was refused bail by the learned Sessions Judge under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C. whereafter during the pendency of the bail before this Court Sections 379 and 411 have been added and the applicant would now be tried under all the aforesaid Sections. However, what has to be considered is as to whether this bail application can also be treated to be a bail application for the added Sections as well. 8. For this, one will have to refer to the provisions of Rule 18, Chapter XVIII of the Allahabad High Court Rules which are quoted hereinbelow : “18. Application for bail.—(1) No application for bail shall be entertained unless accompanied by a copy of judgment or order appealed against or sought to be revised and a copy of order passed by the Sessions Judge on the bail application for the applicant and unless the accused has surrendered except where he has been released on bail after conviction under Section 389(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. (2) Every application for bail in a case which is under investigation or which is pending in a lower Court shall state whether application for bail had or had not been previously made before the Magistrate and the Sessions Judge concerned and the results of such applications, if any. (3) Save in exceptional circumstances— (a) 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. (3) Save in exceptional circumstances— (a) 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. (b) If the application for bail has not been moved within two days after the expiry of the aforesaid period of ten days, the applicant or his Counsel shall give two days previous notice to the Government Advocate as to the exact date on which such application is intended to be moved. (c) Where the prayer for bail is contained in a petition of appeal or application for revision, notice thereof may be given to the Government Advocate the same day prior to the hearing of such petition or application and the fact of such previous notice having been given, shall be endorsed on such petition or application. Along with such notice a certified copy or one attested to be true by the Counsel, of the Judgment appealed from or sought to be revised shall also be given to the Government Advocate. (4) Every application for bail shall now prominently in the first page thereof the crime number, the police station by which, and the section or sections and the Act or Rules under which the applicant is being prosecuted or has been convicted and whether such application is the first, second or any such subsequent application moved by him before this Court, and shall be accompanied by a copy of the first information report, it shall also state the following particulars, namely : (a) The date of the alleged occurrence; (b) The date of the applicant’s arrest. (The Bench Secretary shall while entertaining a bail application for presentation to the Court check every page thereof and shall affix a rubber stamp containing his initials on every page of the bail application and all the annexures thereto before putting it up before the Court in token of his having checked, every page of the application, and he shall, thereafter, make the following endorsement on the bail application : ‘Moved before Hon’ble.............J. on.......................(Date)’ Similarly the official whose duty it is to receive the bail application from the Court after orders, shall affix a rubber stamp containing his initials on the firs page of the bail application in token of his having checked that all the pages of the bail application bear the rubber stamp of the Bench Secretary. The rubber stamps containing the initials of the Bench Secretary and the official or officials authorised to receive fresh bail application from the Court shall be supplied to the Bench Secretaries and the officials by the Registrar of the Court. The application shall not be returned to the applicant or his Counsel after the above endorsement has been made. (5) Every page of the application for bail and every page of the annexures thereto shall bear the full signature of the applicant or his Counsel. (6) In every such application shall be stated the full particulars of the previous application or applications, if any, moved in this Court by same applicant in respect of the same crime and the date or dates on which such previous application or applications had been rejected.” 9. Sri Mahendra Pratap Yadav, learned Government Advocate on the strength of the aforesaid rules and on the strength of the decision in the case of Chintamani Tripathi v. State, 1991 ALJ 681 urged that the procedure prescribed under the aforesaid rules has been held to be mandatory and in this view of the matter, the applicant will have to apply for bail before the Court below in the added Sections as well and thereafter furnish a certified copy of the bail rejection order, if any, before this Court in order to make an application in the added Sections maintainable. He has further urged that this is also necessary, inasmuch as, the Court below is equipped with all the information and with the assistance of the investigating agency as well as the prosecuting agency, is therefore, in a better position to assess and evaluate the materials collected during the investigation for the purposes of consideration of grant of bail. According to him, this practice has been continuing and the same should be construed to be an efficacious remedy both in the interest of the accused as well as of the prosecution. He contends that even conceding that the High Court had concurrent jurisdiction under Section 439, Cr.P.C. to entertain the bail application directly, yet it would be beneficial in the interest of justice to allow the aforesaid procedure as practised uptill now to be adopted in the instant case as well. 10. Learned Counsel for the applicant, on the other hand, contends that once the bail of the applicant has already been rejected under the Sections indicated, then there is no hope for the applicant to apply for bail before the Court below again in the added Sections which is likely to be rejected. It is urged that the fact of Sections having been added has already been brought to the notice of this Court and, therefore, this Court under Section 439, Cr.P.C. is competent to deal with the request of bail of the applicant under the added Sections as well. 11. I have considered the aforesaid submissions and I find that the manner and procedure for entertaining of bail applications is clearly entailed in Rule 18 of Chapter XVIII of the Allahabad High Court Rules referred to hereinabove. According to the said Rules, the application has to be filed in the manner prescribed therein and which clearly requires mentioning of the details pertaining to the offences in which the applicant is charged. This necessarily requires the moving of a bail application under the added Section as well or bringing about an appropriate amendment through an application accompanied by such particulars as may be required under the Rules. The filing of a bail application for the added Sections, therefore, is a must and further, the grant of time of 10 days to the learned Government Advocate under the aforesaid Rules has to be adhered to necessarily. The filing of a bail application for the added Sections, therefore, is a must and further, the grant of time of 10 days to the learned Government Advocate under the aforesaid Rules has to be adhered to necessarily. Even assuming that this Court has the power to entertain an application directly under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in view of the concurrent powers conferred on the High Court, yet it is incumbent upon the applicant to observe the formalities indicated in Rule 18 of Chapter XVIII of the Allahabad High Court Rules. This formality cannot be treated to be an empty formality and can not be supplemented by mere filing of a supplementary affidavit. A formal application has to be moved for the said purpose even if the application has to be dealt with directly by the High Court under Section 439, Cr.P.C. To this extent, the argument of Sri Mahendra Pratap Yadav, learned Government Advocate has to be accepted keeping in view the ratio of the decision in the case of Chintamani Tripathi (supra). 12. Coming to the proposition of law as referred to in the Supreme Court decisions relied upon by learned Government Advocate, suffice is to say, that the suggestion of the learned Government Advocate that it is always safe to call upon the accused to approach the Court below for an appropriate order at the first instance, deserves to be accepted. This does not mean that the High Court is denuded of its powers under Section 439, Cr.P.C. as the said Section clearly confers a concurrent jurisdiction on the High Court. However, this practice should not ordinarily be accepted, except under exceptional circumstances, where additional Sections are added as it is true, that the learned Sessions Court or the Magistrate are better equipped to obtain instructions either from the investigating agency or the prosecuting agency and the accused is in a better position to explain his defence which he wishes to set up and it can be more conveniently scrutinized and assessed by the Courts below. In this view of the matter, I am of the opinion that whenever a bail is rejected by the Courts below it would be in the interest of justice that the accused who approaches this Court for grant of bail, approaches the same Court again in respect of the added Sections during the pendency of such bail applications. 13. In this view of the matter, I am of the opinion that whenever a bail is rejected by the Courts below it would be in the interest of justice that the accused who approaches this Court for grant of bail, approaches the same Court again in respect of the added Sections during the pendency of such bail applications. 13. However, exception can be made in appropriate cases, but not ordinarily, in matters where the addition of a Section does not bring about an addition of a graver offence. For example, in a matter where the accused is charged under Section 307, I.P.C., later on Sections like 323 etc. are added then in such an event it may not be necessary to send back the accused to the Court below and after obtaining instructions in accordance with the Rules referred to herein above, the accused may be permitted to move an application before the High Court itself. This should be attempted exceptionally and not in every case. 14. In the instant case, it is not disputed that the applicant has been taken on police remand and is in custody in respect of the added Sections. In view of what has been stated above, it shall be open to the applicant to approach the Court below for consideration of his bail in the added Sections namely Section 379 and 411, I.P.C. for bail. 15. Coming to the present bail application, the applicant has been charged for having manipulated documents to obtain a money claim in respect of a motor cycle, which according to the prosecution was not stolen and the money had been obtained by the applicant in a manner which amounts to commission of offences under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471, I.P.C. 16. Having heard learned Counsel for the applicant, it is evident that the applicant in order to indicate his bonafidies that he will not misuse his bail during the pendency of the trial has proceeded to deposit the amount of Rs. 48,000/- with the Insurance Co. and has also filed an application for getting the vehicle released in favour of the Insurance Co. The applicant has also given an undertaking before this Court that he shall not misuse his bail and shall cooperate with the trial as he has no previous criminal history. 48,000/- with the Insurance Co. and has also filed an application for getting the vehicle released in favour of the Insurance Co. The applicant has also given an undertaking before this Court that he shall not misuse his bail and shall cooperate with the trial as he has no previous criminal history. It is also urged that the applicant would not have ever intended to use the same motor-cycle once he had lodged an FIR in that regard. 17. Keeping in view the aforesaid circumstances, and the fact that the applicant has also deposited a sum of Rs.48,000/- with the Insurance Co., the applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail. It is also observed that in the event the applicant approaches the Court below for grant of bail under the added Sections as referred to hereinabove, the Court below shall, keeping in view the present order granting bail to the applicant consider the grant of bail to the applicant in the added Sections as well and dispose of the application preferably on the same day keeping in view the law laid down by the Full Bench in the case of Amrawati and others v. State of U.P., 2004 (4) ESC 2321 (All) (FB). It is expected that the Court below shall also take into consideration the fact that the applicant has already deposited a sum of Rs. 48,000/- with the Insurance Co., which fact has been taken notice of by this Court as well while granting bail. 18. Learned Counsel for the applicant has filed a supplementary affidavit dated 6.8.2007 stating therein that during the pendency of this bail application the prosecution agency is now prosecuting the applicant in Case Crime No. 385 of 2005 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 379 and 411, I.P.C., police station Thakurganj, Lucknow in respect of Case Crime No. 144 of 2007, P.S. Aminabad. A prayer has been made to now grant bail to the applicant in view of the aforesaid changed position. The bail application of the applicant under the added Sections has to be considered by the Court below as observed herein above. However, the present bail application is being allowed in respect of Sections under which the applicant was being originally prosecuted. 19. The bail application of the applicant under the added Sections has to be considered by the Court below as observed herein above. However, the present bail application is being allowed in respect of Sections under which the applicant was being originally prosecuted. 19. Let the applicant Rajesh Kumar Singh involved in case crime No. 144 of 2007 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, I.P.C., Police Station Aminabad, District-Lucknow be enlarged on bail on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two sureties, each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the Magistrate concerned. ————