Judgment 1. Heard the parties. 2. The petitioner is named in the FIR of Rosera RS. Case no. 121 of 2004 under section 307 etc. IPC and 27 of the Arms Act. The petitioner along with other accused persons is alleged to have required the informant and his companions to deliver their money in their possession to them and refusal in that behalf resulted in giving assault to the informant and others. The allegation of assault is specifically made against two accused persons namely, Krishna and Arun. Paragraphs 47 to 49 of the case diary contain the injuries on the three injured namely, Mukesh, Deepak and Keshav Kumar Singh. Mukesh had two injuries, Deepak had four while Keshav had as many as five injuries on their persons. The nature of the injuries were simple in all the cases but there were sharp cutting injuries on Deepak Kumar and Keshav Kumar. 3. The contention is that after investigation the petitioner was not sent up by the police. Further, contention is that at least five RWs. examined during the course of investigation stated that the petitioners was not present at the scene of the occurrence and he was engaged in the worship of Goddess Durga and that matter was verified by the police as well. However, the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rosera has summoned the petitioner after perusing the case diary. 4. I have pointed out regularly that question of granting or not granting bail to an accused is never dependent upon section of the offence or an enactment. It is purely related to the allegations levelled in a particular case There might be other circumstances as well to consider while granting or refusing bail to an accused. Those circumstances might be that the court being not confident enough in reposing confidence in the accused that he would be available to it throughout the trial. The other circumstance could be that there may not be a chance of tampering with the evidence or that the accused has a comparatively tolerable criminal behaviour. Besides the above, there could be an apprehension to indicate that the accused if released on bail could have danger to his life or in the alternative he could be dangerous to the society, then in that case as well the accused may not be released on bail. 5. Besides the above, there could be an apprehension to indicate that the accused if released on bail could have danger to his life or in the alternative he could be dangerous to the society, then in that case as well the accused may not be released on bail. 5. This is being regularly observed that judicial act as regards the bail jurisdiction has become errant. The courts are passing orders on bail petitions to reject the prayer merely by looking to the section of an offence and not considering the allegations or other facts and circumstances of the case. It has resulted in filing of huge petitions before this court and the list does not appear to be ending in near future or being within manageable limit as regards the capacity and present strength of this Court. As such, I would like to suggest to the officers among the original courts where prayers for bail are generally made, to tune themselves to the situation so as to acting freely and fearlessly in true exercise of their jurisdiction. 6. As regards the present petition the petitioner being named in the FIR is not alleged any specific overt-act and he was not sent up by the police. These two circumstances could be enough for the court below to consider the prayer for bail irrespective of the fact that the petitioner had filed petition before the learned Sessions Judge and before this court as well. I want to experiment by directing the petitioner to appear before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rosera, and file a petition for bail and the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rosera, I believe, shall act keeping in view the observations made herein to dispose of the prayer for bail without any prejudice. 7. Let the Registrar General of the Court transmit the order to all District & Sessions Judges for circulation.