Rajesh Upadhyay vs State of Madhya Pradesh

This third bail application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter shall be referred to as “Cr.P.Câ€) has been filed

seeking regular bail by the applicant, who is in custody with effect from 15.7.2013 for the offences under Sections 307, 302 read with Section 34 of

the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter shall be referred to as “I.P.Câ€) and Sections 25 & 27 of the Arms Act pertains to Crime No.689/2013

registered at Police Station T.T.Nagar, District Bhopal. His first bail application (MCRC No.3806/2014) was dismissed as not pressed vide order

dated 17.7.2014 and thereafter second bail application (MCRC No.18262/2016) was also dismissed as not pressed vide order dated 6.12.2016 with a

direction to the Trial Court to conclude the trial as early as possible preferably within a period of nine months from the date of production of certified

copy of this order otherwise the applicant would be at liberty to renew the prayer. It was also directed by this Court that the photocopy of the order

dated 6.12.2016 be immediately sent by the Registry to the Trial Court.

It is contended by learned senior counsel that the copy of the order dated 6.12.2016 was sent by the Registry of this Court and the certified copy of

the order has also been produced by the applicant on 27.1.2017, even then the trial is not concluded within the time so specified. However, as per the

liberty granted, this third bail application (MCRC No.25749/2017) may be considered. The applicant is in custody since last more than 5 years and the

pre-convict incarceration is not permissible, therefore, on the ground of delay in trial, the applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail.

Upon hearing the bail application vide order dated 2. 1.2018, a report was called through the District and Sessions Judge, Bhopal asking that on

which date the order passed in MCRC No.18262/2016 has been produced before the Trial Court; and on having knowledge of the order, why the trial

has not been concluded within the time so specified. The said explanation was sought in consonance to the memo of the Registry dated 5.7.2017

within two weeks explaining further whether delay is attributable to the prosecution or to the defence.

In furtherance to the order of this Court, the first status report was received alongwith the forwarding letter of the District and Sessions Judge,

Bhopal dated 15.1.2018 attaching a report of XXI Additional Sessions Judge dated 8.1.2018. In the report, it was mentioned, on receiving the memo of

the Registry, he has perused the record of the trial and found, the order dated 6.12.2016 passed in MCRC No.18262/2016 is attached with the record

of the Sessions Trial back side. But on the memo to file the said document, the then Presiding Officer has not endorsed it putting the signature,

however, explained that the order of this Court was not produced before the Presiding Officer either by the Advocate or by the concerned staff. It is

said as per order of the District and Sessions Judge, Bhopal, the case was made over to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge where the charges

were framed on 24.2.2014. With effect from 7.7.2014, the statements of the prosecution witnesses were started, but this is factually incorrect, infact

the statement of Pw.1 Advocate Pradeep Singh was recorded first time on 24.9.2014 and on the date of submitting the report, fourteen prosecution

witnesses were examined and seven still remained. It was said, the Court may take three to six months time for completion of the trial. Alongwith the

said report, the steps taken by the Predecessor Presiding Judge were also attached; those are communications made through Superintendent of Police,

Station House Officer of Police Station T.T.Nagar, District Bhopal and Chief Medical Officer, Narmada Trauma Centre, District Bhopal.

On receiving the said report, this Court was anxious to know why the document produced by the applicant in the Court was not endorsed by the

Judge, however vide order dated 23.1.2008, the explanation was sought after a preliminary enquiry. The clarification is further asked why such

document has not brought to the knowledge of the Presiding Officer by the staff. It was also asked on which date the order of the Court sent by the

Registry has been received to the office of the District and Sessions Judge. On the said issues, the report was directed to be prepared through the

District and Sessions Judge within a period of two weeks and to submit it indicating the fault of the persons responsible for it.

In furtherance to the said directions, the District and Sessions Judge, Bhopal has sent a preliminary inquiry report dated 10. 2.2018 and said, the

order dated 6.12.2016 of MCRC No.18262/2016 was produced by Shri Mayur Chalisgaonkar, Advocate on 27.1.2017 but on memo to file the said

order, endorsement of the Presiding Officer is not there. In the order sheet dated 27.1.2017, the reference to file the order is also not on record. The

statement of the Advocate was recorded, who deposed, when he has shown the order of the High Court to the Judge, the Presiding Officer being

busy, said it may be seen by her later and may be handed over to the Reader. The District and Sessions Judge opined, the statement of the Advocate

do not appear to be true because if the order has been brought to the notice of the Judge then he/she would have signed on the memo of filing of the

document and taken note of it on the order sheet. The report further indicates that the statement of the then Presiding Officer, who is presently

working as Registrar at National Law Institute University, Bhopal has been recorded, who said that the said document has not been brought to her

notice by the Advocate or by the Reader. In case the said order has been filed, she might have taken action as per the directions of the Court. The

report further indicates that the statement of Criminal Reader Shri Vinod Kumar Agrawal has also recorded, who said that the order sheet dated

27.1.2017 has not been written by him, infact it was written by Shri Mohammad Yunus Khan, who was not having the knowledge of the criminal

cases although posted as Criminal Reader. In the statement of Mohammad Yunus Khan, admitted that the order sheet dated 27.1.2017 was written by

him while he was posted as Criminal Reader in the same Court, but copy of the order of the High Court was not produced before him.

Considering the aforesaid, the District and Sessions Judge, Bhopal opined that the reference of the document is neither in the order sheet nor it has

been endorsed by the Presiding Officer, however, the Presiding Officer was not having knowledge of the order of the High Court directing conclusion

of the trial within a period of nine months. He also observed that generally such documents are being given to the concerned Reader, who used to put

it on record. Mohammad Yunus Khan stated that he came to know about the document in mid 2017 i.e the date from which the file was asked by the

Copying Section when the certified copy of the document was demanded. In the report, explanation regarding date of receiving the order sent by the

Registry in the office of the District and Sessions Judge, Bhopal was not there.

In view of the above, an order was passed on 5.3.2018 asking the report from the Registrar (Judicial) on which date the order dated 6.12.2016

passed in MCRC No.18262/2016 was sent to the concerned Court for information in view of the directive issued by the Court. The Registrar

(Judicial) submitted its report and said it was dispatched on 13.12.2016 and received to the office of the District and Sessions Judge, Bhopal on

20.12.2016.

Considering the directions issued by this Court and the report of the Registrar (Judicial) so also the website report called on 14. 3.2018 in

continuation to the orders of this Court dated 23.1.2018 & 5. 3.2018 so also the report of the District and Sessions Judge dated 10. 2.2018, further

explanation was sought on the issue that even after receiving the order and having entry in the dispatch register, why the order was not complied by

the concerned Court. The mechanism of communication of the order sent by the High Court, if any developed, was also sought attaching its policy or

the rules, if any, as the case may be.

In that regard, the District and Sessions Judge has again sent a letter on 31.3.2018 interalia submitting that if any order of the High Court

dispatched from the Registry is sent and is received in the Inward Section and if the envelope from the High Court is sent and addressed to the

District and Sessions Judge then it be put up before the District & Sessions Judge otherwise it be placed before the Clerk of the Court. It is not

traceable as to whether the order of the High Court was received in the envelope addressed to the District and Sessions Judge or to the office of the

District and Sessions Judge. It has been explained that the said dispatch was addressed to XVI Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal though the trial is

pending in the Court of XI Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal. Alongwith the said letter, the explanation written by the XVI Additional Sessions Judge

addressed to the District and Sessions Judge dated 31.3.2018 as well as the letter written by Inward Clerk Shri Jagdish Vaswani have also been

attached.

On perusal of the reports, it reveal that the said document was received by Shri Suresh Kumar Ravat, who is a Clerk in the Court of XVI

Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal, but because he was on leave and the status report was sought by this Court upto 31. 3.2018 and he was supposed

to resume his duties thereafter, therefore, the steps taken have not been explained. The letter of the Inward Clerk indicates that he usually transmits

the communication if any received on the same day or on the next day. It is admitted that the order dated 6.12.2016 passed in MCRC No.18262/2016

is entered in the inward register at Serial No.3085 and the Reader of XVI Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal has given the acknowledgment on

20.12.2016.

On perusal of the aforesaid, it is clear that as per directions issued by this Court on 6.12.2016 in MCRC No.18262/2016, the certified copy of the

order was filed in Trial Court alongwith the memo to file document dated 27.1.2017. Similarly, it is also apparent that the photocopy of the order of this

Court was dispatched by the Registry on 13.12.2016 and received on 20.12.2016 by the Court of Clerk in the office of the District and Sessions Judge,

Bhopal at Serial No.3085. In my considered opinion, the issuance of the direction by the Court and on its commutation is not merely a formality to the

Judges acknowledged in the office of the District and Sessions Judge, Bhopal or by the Judges concerned.

In view of the foregoing repeated reports sent by the District and Sessions Judge, Bhopal, it can be safely culled out that certified copy of the

order filed by the applicant is on record of the trial alongwith the memo of document dated 27.1.2017 but on the said memo, the signature of the Judge

on presentation is not on record, due to which a pretext has been taken that the Judge concerned was unaware of the directions issued by this Court

regarding conclusion of the trial. It is not disputed that the copy of the order dated 6.12.2016 was dispatched by the Registry of this High Court on

13.12.2016 and received by the Reader of XVI Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal on 20.12.2016. On receiving the copy by the Reader, but why it

was not brought to the notice of the Judge. It is said that the order sheet was written by the Reader Mohammad Yunus Khan, who was not having

experience in criminal cases and also not received the memo of document alongwith certified copy of the order of the High Court.

The conclusion of all three reports is to shift the responsibility of the Presiding Officer on the Advocate or on the head of the staff though

undisputedly the order of the High Court is attached in the record of the trial and the order was dispatched by the High Court, received in the office of

the District & Sessions Judge through the Reader of the XVI Additional Sessions Judge. It gives the only impression to this Court that the order of the

High Court is on record, but due care and caution has not been taken by the Presiding Officers and the Court staff. When this Court directed to send

information by way of status report or preliminary enquiry, its reflects favour either to the Presiding Officers or to the staff. The painful part is, such

favour is projected on the cost of the ignorance of the orders of the High Court by the Judges of the Subordinate Court, which would reflect from the

discussion made in succeeding paragraphs.

This Court while hearing the bail application has called the original record of the trial, which is perused. On perusal, it is seen that as and when the

applications or the documents are filed, most of the time the endorsement of the Judge is not on those papers putting the signatures of the presentation.

Its details are; (i) on the application dated 9.8.2017 filed by the accused under Section 317 of the Cr.P.C, the seal of the Judge is there but signature is

not on the presentation; (ii) on the application dated 1.12.2015 filed under Section 317 of Cr.P.C, the signature on presentation by the Judge is not on

there; (iii) on the application dated 9.5.2018 filed under Section 311 of Cr.P.C, the signature of the Judge on presentation is there; (iv) on the

application dated 19.4.2018 filed under Section 311 of Cr.P.C, the signature of the Judge on presentation is there; (v) on the application dated 6.2.2018

filed under Section 311 of Cr.P.C, the signature of the Judge on presentation is there; (vi) on the application dated 29.1.2018 filed by the Narmada

Trauma Centre, Bhopal as well as on the application under Section 317 of Cr.P.C, the signature of the Judge on presentation is there; (vii) on the

application dated 9.9.2016, the signature of the Judge on presentation is not on record; (viii) on the application dated 4.3.2016 filed under Section 256

of Cr.P.C, the signature of the Judge on presentation is not on record; (ix) on the application dated 17.12.2014 under Section 301(1) of Cr.P.C filed by

the complainant, the signature of the Judge on presentation is not on record; (x) on the application dated 30.5.2015 filed under Section 256 of Cr.P.C,

the signature of the Judge on presentation is not on record; (xi) on the application dated 3.6.2015 filed under Section 317 of Cr.P.C, the signature of

the Judge on presentation is not on record; (xii) on the application dated 30. 11.2015 filed under Section 317 of Cr.P.C, the signature of the Judge on

presentation is not on record; (xiii) on the application dated 7.7.2014 filed under Section 317 of Cr.P.C, the signature of the Judge on presentation is

not on record; (xiv) on the application under Section 451 of Cr.P.C, the signature of the Judge on presentation is not on record; (xv) on the list of

document produced on 23.1.2014, the signature of the Judge on presentation is not on record; (xvi) on the application dated 23.1.2014 filed under

Section 227 of Cr.P.C, the signature of the Judge on presentation is not on record. Thus, it is apparent on seventeen occasions, the applications or

documents were filed in the trial, but signature on endorsement by the Judge for presentation is only on six times while on eleven occasions the Judge

has not put the signature on the presentation and the order of the Court is the twelveth document. It is relevant to mention that from the date of

presentation of the document, so many dates were fixed for recording the evidence, but why the order of the High Court was not seen by the Judge, is

not on record. Therefore, how far the preliminary inquiry report is correct, is required to be looked into by the District & Sessions Judge in a matter in

which repeated explanation is being called for.

Undisputedly, the order of this Court was dispatched by the Registry received by the Reader of XVI Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal in the

inward register. It was said in the report that the trial was not pending with the said Judge, then order of the High Court must be returned back by the

said Reader either to the Court of Clerk for sending the same in appropriate Court where the trial was pending or it must be brought to the notice of

the Presiding Judge, who may bring it to the notice of the District & Sessions Judge. The preliminary enquiry report of the District & Sessions Judge,

Bhopal is silent in this regard. Meaning thereby the Reader of XVI Additional Sessions Judge even after receiving the order of the High Court has

either ignored the same or thrown it into the dustbin. Nothing is brought on record regarding the steps taken against the Clerks concerned by the

District & Sessions Judge, after taking report from XVI Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal. The copy of the order of the High Court is attached with

the record of the trial, however, the said document would have attached by the Reader with the file, why he has not brought this order to the

knowledge of the Judge and why it has not been taken on the order sheet by him. Meaning thereby the said Clerk/Reader has ignored the order of the

High Court intentionally. The steps taken by the Trial Judge against the said Reader or by the District & Sessions Judge is not on record even after

acknowledging of their mistake.

One more relevant fact is also required to observe that either prior to receiving the directions by the High Court or after filing the certified copy of

the order, the dates fixed in trial are with the same interval except the few dates from February, 2018 for some time. It is experienced in number of

cases, as and when the direction for conclusion of the trial within the specified time has been issued by the Court, the Trial Judges even after receiving

the orders of the High Court, are in the habit to fix the dates as they were fixed previously with same interval as they were fixing prior to receiving the

directions of the Court. The said practice is amounting to ignorance of the directions of the High Court by the Trial Judges. It is the duty of the Judges,

on receiving the directions of the High Court, the next dates in such cases must be of the shorter duration in comparison to the previous dates to show

their endeavour to the directions of the Court. It is also experienced that on elapse of the time as directed, the Courts send the PUD for extension of

time without showing their endeavour of disposal of the case giving all such details and write the letter in routine manner, it again makes the cause list

long, burdensome and also waste the time of this Court.

It is informed by the Registry that after issuing directions by this Court on 30.1.2018 in M.Cr.C No.338/2018 (Imran Khan Versus State of M.P)

for evolving mechanism to circulate the orders amongst the Courts, the matter was placed by the Principal Registrar (Judicial) before Hon’ble the

Chief Justice. The relevant portion of the note sheet dated 3.2.2018 is reproduced as under:-

To comply with the directions issued by this Court in MCRC No.338/2018, the aforesaid steps are proposed.

Therefore, if approved;

(1) May direct all the Section Officers & Dealing Assistants of the Judicial Branch to collect & compile the Court orders/directions issued by

Hon’ble Court for Subordinate/Trial Courts on priority basis and send copies of the orders to concerned District Judge & concerned Court through

Registered Post for compliance as per directions of Hon’ble Court. They will also be required to send order through fax & e-mail.

(2) May direct the Registrar (IT/SA) to develop a programme for Dealing Assistants of the High Court to monitor of the cases and to keep statics of

the cases in which directions have been issued by Hon’ble High Court for the Subordinate/Trial Court for compliance. Programme should be such

that Registry Officers may also view & monitor the same regarding the status of cases and action taken by the Dealing Assistants.

(3) May direct the Registrar (IT/SA) to develop & provide the link/tab in the CMIS User ID of each Dealing Assistants of the High Court as well as

User IDs of all the Judges in their CIS 2.0 Module of the Subordinate/Trial Courts, so that, the directions may also be sent online, directly to the

concerned Judge.

(4) May direct Registrar General to issue instructions from administrative side to all the District & Sessions Judges of State of Madhya Pradesh to

evolve their mechanism for receiving & circulating all the orders issued by the High Court amongst the concerned Judicial Officers of the

Subordinate/Trial Courts, so that, the directions be complied timely and to send the acknowledgment of the order of High Court and compliance report

to this Registry.

(Arvind Kumar Shukla)

Principal Registrar (Judicial)

Hon’ble the Chief Justice

The said note sheet was acknowledged to the Registrar (Information & Technology) by the Principal Registrar on 7.2.2018. The Registrar

General vide memorandum dated 7.2.2018 communicated to all the District and Sessions Judge of the State of Madhya Pradesh to evolve a

mechanism for receiving and circulating the orders of the High Court amongst the concerned Judicial Officers of the Subordinate Courts/Trial Courts

for timely compliance. The relevant portion of the said memorandum is reproduced as under:-

// MEMORANDUM //

No. 10 /PR(J)/2018 Jabalpur, Dated 07/02/2018

To,

All the District & Sessions Judges,

State of Madhya Pradesh.

Sub.:- For evolving the mechanism for receiving and circulating all the orders issued by the High Court amongst concerned Judicial Officers of the

Subordinate/Trial Courts for timely compliance.

----- ***** -----

Under the subject cited above, it is to bring to your kind notice that Hon’ble the Chief Justice, on perusal of the Court Order dated 30-01-2018

passed in M.Cr.C.No.338/2018 (Imran Khan Vs. The State of M.P.) (copy enclosed), has been pleased to direct all the District & Sessions Judges of

the State of Madhya Pradesh to evolve their mechanism for receiving & circulating all the orders issued by the High Court amongst the concerned

Judicial Officers of the Subordinate/ Trial courts, so that, the directions be complied timely and to send the acknowledgment of the order of High Court

and compliance report to this Registry. Please take necessary action accordingly.

(Mohd. Fahim Anwar)

Encl.:- Copy of Court order dated 30-01-2018 Registrar General Passed in M.Cr.C.No.338/2018

This Court vide order dated 10.7.2018 directed to call for the record of the case of the trial from the District and Sessions Judge, Bhopal alongwith

the policy formulated for circulation of the order of the High Court amongst the Judges. The District & Sessions Judge, Bhopal has not informed

regarding the mechanism developed for communication to the order of the High Court amongst the Judges, who are dealing with the cases and the

compliance is expected from them as directed by the Court. The Principal Registrar (Judicial) is also directed to place a policy formulated by the High

Court in this regard. In furtherance thereto, the Principal Registrar (Judicial) vide note sheet dated 11.7.2018 has made the communication, however, it

is reproduced as under:-

Sub.:Â Submission of report regarding status of evolving mechanism for sending orders of the High Court to the concerned Trial Courts/Subordinate

Courts.

11/07/2018

In compliance of order dated 10/07/2018 passed in MCRC No.25749/2017, the report regarding policy formulated by the High Court regarding

circulation of the order of the High Court is submitted as under:-

1- As per abovementioned direction, a Memo No.103/PR(J)/2018 dated 10/07/2018 has been issued to the District Judge, Bhopal by fax and e-mail for

sending the record of Sessions Trial No.37/2014 pending in the Court of 11th ASJ, Bhopal by a Special Messenger positively by tomorrow i.e.

11/07/2018. In compliance to this, vide Memo No.47, dated 10-07-2018 the record has been received today by special Messanger along with a

separate envelope No.883, dated 10-07-2018 (both are sent in sealed cover envepole) by the District and Sessions Judge, Bhopal.

2- In addition to this, in compliance of Court order dated 30/01/2018 (Flag-A) passed in MCRC No.338/2018 and vide administrative order dated

05/02/2018 (Flag-B), Hon’ble the Chief Justice was pleased to direct to take opinion of Registrar (IT) to find out the modules regarding evolving

mechanism for sending orders of the High Court to the concerned Trial Courts/Subordinate Courts. The copy of order dated 05/02/2018 was

forwarded to you on 07/02/2018 ( Flag-C) to take further necessary action and also to give your opinion in the matter accordingly.

3- In compliance of aforesaid Court order dated 30/01/2018, Memo No.10/PR(J)/2018 dated 07/02/2018 (Flag-D) and Memo No.59/ PR(J)/2018

dated 25/04/2018 (Flag-E) have already been forwarded to all the District & Sessions Judges of State of Madhya Pradesh.

4- To comply with the abovementioned Court order dated 10/07/2018, a status report of the policy formulated by the High Court for evolving

mechanism for sending orders of the High Court to the concerned Trial Courts/ Subordinate Courts has been obtained vide ntoe-sheet dated

10/07/2018 (Flag-F).

5- In response, Registrar (IT/SA) has submitted a report dated 10/07/2018 (Flag-G) in which it has been informed that only the District Harda has

complied the order and rest of the District Courts have not shown any updated status. Copy of the updation sheet has also been enclosed alongwith

the report.

Hon’ble, submitted for kind perusal & further necessary orders please.

(Manoj Kumar Shrivastava)

Principal Registrar (Judicial)

Reader to Hon’ble Shri Justice J.K. Maheshwari

In view of the foregoing discussion, it is concluded that the direction issued by this Court was communicated to the office of the District &

Sessions Judge, Bhopal and also filed by the Advocate, which is attached with the case file of the trial. The staff, who received the order of the High

Court, has not taken care of the order. The document tied up with the file has not been brought to the notice of the Presiding Officer by the staff. The

Presiding Officer has not seen the file though from the date of filing of the directions, the case continued for recording of the evidence on so many

occasions. This can only be an apathy to the direction of this Court by all concerned. The report sent by District & Sessions Judge is not describing

the true and correct picture as discussed hereinabove in Paragraph Nos. 14,15,16. However, it is to be introspected by him to whom he wants to save,

that too on the cost of the non-compliance of the direction of this Court. In my considered opinion, this can only be recognized as ineffective control

over the staff and irresponsible response sent to the High Court without developing any mechanism for circulation of the orders of this Court.

It is experienced that the status reports received to this Court are not pin pointed. It should classify the date of assignment to the case in Committal

Court, the date of framing of the charge, the reason of delay, if any, be described in brief, the date of filing of the trial programme specifying when the

first date was fixed for recording the evidence and when it was started, thereafter the delay in recording the evidence be briefly described. It be

specified, the date of receiving the direction of the High Court and the manner of communication either from the Registry or on filing of the Advocate.

From the date of receiving the order of the High Court, what steps were taken by the Judge giving dates of shorter duration in comparison to the

previous dates and the delay, if any, caused by the prosecution or by the defense be described in brief giving its conclusion, why trial could not be

completed within the time so specified. Similarly, when the PUDs are being sent, they do not describe the date of receiving the order and the steps

taken by the Judge giving dates of the shorter duration from the previous dates. It be explained in brief why trial could not be concluded within the

time so specified and the reason was beyond the control of the Court. It be also specified, the delay is attributable to the prosecution or defence,

however, extension of time may be asked with those details.

In view of the foregoing discussion, in the considered opinion of this Court, a uniform mechanism is required to be developed by the Registry within

a reasonable time as far as possible within a period of one month thereby the directions issued by this Court may be communicated to the Court

concerned with intent to comply such directions in the letter and spirit. The uniform mechanism must attach the format for the status report and the

PUD describing the points as specified hereinabove. In this regard, the exercise is required to be done by the Registry on administrative side.

Now reverting to the consideration of the bail to the applicant is concerned, it is to observe here that the applicant is in custody since 15.7.2013 for

last more than five years and the pre-convict incarceration is not permissible under the law. Despite the direction of the High Court, no effective steps

have been taken by the Trial Court to conclude the trial fixing the early dates. Similarly, as reveal from the status report and also on perusal of the

record, the delay is attributable to the prosecution not to the defense in conclusion of the trial, therefore, the applicant deserves to be released on bail.

On due consideration of the above facts & circumstances of the case, this Court deems it proper to grant bail to the applicant. Accordingly, this

third bail application is allowed. Applicant Rajesh Upadhyay be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in sum of Rs.50000/- (Rupees Fifty

Thousand Only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of JMFC concerned or CJM for his appearance in Trial Court on the

dates so fixed by that Court during trial. It is directed that applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 437(3) Cr.P.C.

While parting with this order, it is to observe here that the Registrar General of this Court may take following steps:-

(i) In furtherance to the communication of the Registry dated 7.2.2018 and the note sheet of the Principal Registrar (Judicial) dated 11.7.2018, a

uniform mechanism or guidelines be developed by the Registry for communication and compliance to the direction of the Court as far as possible

within a period of one month.

(ii) The guidelines or mechanism developed by the District Judges, in furtherance to the memo of Registry, shall be complied and it may be taken to be

the suggestions and it be considered by the Committee consists with atleast two Registrars of the High Court and an exhaustive uniform guidelines be

prepared with intent to carry out the directions of the Court.

(iii) Those guidelines must be explanatory to give response to the directions of the High Court immediately on receiving. While complying those

directions, it ought to be reflected in the proceedings of the trial giving shorter dates in comparison to the dates of previous intervals.

(iv) For sending the status report, a format be prepared inserting the points as discussed in Para 23 and some other points as may be felt necessary by

the Committee. A format be also prepared for the PUDs sent by the Judges for extension of time specifying the points as discussed in Para 23.

(v) On receiving the said PUD, it be immediately attached to the file and the PUD for extension of time should not be kept pending in the Registry for

indefinite period and it ought to be listed within two weeks from the date of its receipt except during vacations.

(vi) The record of the trial be sent by the Registry by Special Messenger within three days.

With the aforesaid observations, this bail petition stands allowed and disposed of.