K. J. VAIDYA, J. ( 1 ). Two questions of quite great public importance baffiling this Court and perhaps many others day-in and day-out have arisen for consideration in this Office Objection matter. They are : Firstly, "whether in view of the hundreds and thousands of the accused who are found not traceable and absconding one after another, after their acquittals, and thereby not available to be served with the Warrants and/or Notices of this Court after the appeals/revisions are admitted against them, in the overall interest of justice, though there is no express provision in the code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 on the point, this Court would be still justified in directing the sub-ordinate Courts to take bonds and bail-bonds from the concerned accused as well as their sureties, by way of security for the purpose of making them available to face not only the investigation and the trial proceedings but also the appellate one and thereby to take ultimate orders that may be passed against them ?" And, as the off-shoot of the first question - Secondly, "whether in a given case if the accused is not released on bail pending trial, and is ultimately acquitted, then in such cases also before releasing him, he and/or his sureties should be asked to furnish bail-bonds alongwith his permanent residential address, etc. , so as to secure his presence at the time of hearing of the appeal/ revision before appellate Court and to honour whatever orders that may be passed against him ?" ( 2 ). These two questions arise this way - The respondent-Harish Laxman solanki who came to be tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, jamnagar, in Sessions Case No. 25 of 1990 for the alleged offences punishable under Sees. 302 and 324 of the I. P. C. , was at the end of the trial, by the judgment and order dated 13-8-1990 ordered to be acquitted, giving rise to the present appeal, wherein this Court [coram : N. J. Pandya and S. M. Soni, JJ. ] on 3-7-1991 passed the following order : "admit. Non-bailable warrant to issue. " thereafter, despite several attempts, the police agency has been unable to serve the notice as well as the non-bailable warrant on the respondent for more than about two years. ] on 3-7-1991 passed the following order : "admit. Non-bailable warrant to issue. " thereafter, despite several attempts, the police agency has been unable to serve the notice as well as the non-bailable warrant on the respondent for more than about two years. The last telegram dated 29-10-1993 also reveals that the police has no information regarding the respondent since about 2 years. Now this is not the problem arising in this appeal only, as in fact several such acquittal appeals are not just ready and stranded on the said ground alone. This indeed has created quite a serious problem for this Court because unless the accused is served, the matter cannot be said to be ready to be finally heard and decided. As a result, number of such unready matters for non-service have started piling up unnecessarily delaying their disposals adding thereby to the head-ache of the Administration of Justice. Not only that, but such non-services of notices, bailable or non-bailable warrants ultimately result into several other inconveniences such as - (i) time and again the ministerial staff of this Court has to prepare the Board and special notes for such objection matters to be listed for orders before the Court; (ii) it also consumes considerable precious time of this Court; (iii) the office of P. P. and for that purpose the police officer of the concerned area also have to time and again enter into, what at times appears to be, an endless correspondence. This cycle many a times repeatedly goes on and on without any effective immediate results. The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short the Code) which has taken enough care to secure the attendance of the accused at the stage of investigation and trial by providing for interim bail and bailbonds from the accused and his sureties on the basis of Form No. 45 in Schedule-11 of the Code, is unfortunately silent about the interim period between the order of acquittal and the acquittal appeals. It is this freezone which is quite freely and conveniently exploited by accused, to the greatest disadvantage to the public justice. This sort of experience is quite embarassing and frustrating to any judicial system. It is also against the overall public interest. It is this freezone which is quite freely and conveniently exploited by accused, to the greatest disadvantage to the public justice. This sort of experience is quite embarassing and frustrating to any judicial system. It is also against the overall public interest. In serious cases like murder, decoity, rape and such other serious offences like the one under the Narcotic Act, if after the acquittal appeals are admitted, the Court and the police machinery is required to chase the accused for the service, it is not only inconvenient but the same is ridiculous enough coming in the way of expeditious disposals of pending criminal matters. The criminal jurisprudence warrants that the cases - be it at the stage of investigation, trial or at the appellate stage, the same should be disposed of as expeditiously as possible in the overall interest of - both the accused as well as the prosecution. In this view of matter, it is indeed no more possible for this Court to bear and stand with such an embarassing situation which is not only challenging and frustrating but as stated above, has unnecessarily started over-burdening the court work. Accordingly, in our opinion, such a chronic and pastering disease is required to be immediately remedied and that the same could be done in the following two ways only - Firstly, whenever any accused is arrested for the alleged offence and applies for bail, the sub-ordinate court should see to it that bail-bonds from him and his sureties are taken, not only for the limited purpose of securing his presence at the stage of investigation and trial, but the same should also cover the proceedings before the appellate Courts. Secondly, if for whatever reasons, the accused was not released on bail at the time of trial and ultimately is acquitted, then in that case also before releasing him, he should be asked to furnish the bonds and the sureties to the satisfaction of the Court for the purpose of making him available to take whatever order that may be passed against him by the appellate Court. It appears that in all probabilities due to some inadvertence the important provision regarding securing the presence of the accused at the appellate stage after their acquittals, stands missed so far. It appears that in all probabilities due to some inadvertence the important provision regarding securing the presence of the accused at the appellate stage after their acquittals, stands missed so far. Now in order to appreciate this aspect in proper perspective, it would indeed be quite useful to have a look at the relevant Form No. 45, in schedule It of the Code, which pertains to bonds and Bail-Bonds for attendance before Officer In-charge of Police Station or Court (Ref : Secs. 436, 437, 438 and 441 ).