ORDER R.B. Dixit, J. 1. A letter of reference was received from the Third Additional Judge to Sessions Judge, Bhind seeking direction as to which of the order of this Court has to be implemented whereunder in Misc. Cr. Case No. 325/99, the bail application of accused Jagat Singh was allowed by the order dated 2-7-1999 of this Court while another application of the same accused in Misc. Cr. Case No. 1750/99 was rejected vide order dated 5-8-1999 of this Court. 2. Looking to the conflicting orders of this Court referred herein-above, a notice was issued to Advocate, Shri R.P. Gupta, who had moved the subsequent application in Misc. Cr. Case No. 1750/99 wherein no mention was made about the filing and allowing of earlier application in Misc. Cr. Case No. 325/99. 3. The learned Advocate, Shri R.P. Gupta, in his reply dated 15-10-99 had submitted that he filed the said application on the instruction of Har Charan, brother of accused Jagat Singh, who was introduced by his junior, Shri P.L. Kushwaha. Since he was not informed about previous order of this Court, he is not at fault and could have gained nothing out of such non-mention of earlier application because that application already been allowed by order dated 2-7-1999 of this Court. An affidavit was filed on behalf of his junior, Shri P.L. Kushwaha wherein it had been stated that Har Charan, brother of accused Jagat Singh, gave no information in respect of any previous bail application or bail order. 4. After going through the record of earlier application registered as Misc. Cr. Case No. 325/99 and reply of Advocate, Shri R.P. Gupta. I am of the view that since earlier application was allowed, there can be no malafide intention on the part of the learned counsel, Shri R.P. Gupta, in filing second bail application before this Court. His action being bonafide, the notice issued against him deserves to be filed with a word of caution for future guidance. 5. Although it was suggested on behalf of the State that filing of an affidavit with the bail application should be made compulsory in order to avoid recurrence of such cases in future, but this proposal has been resisted on behalf of some of the learned Advocates on the ground that it will cause unnecessary delay and expenses to the poor litigants. Further even if affidavit is procured, there is no guarantee to prevent the recurrence of such unhappy situation because of so many factors particularly ignorant and illiterate litigants. However, in order to safeguard interest of Advocates and to ensure their bonafide action as held in case of Hari Mohan Dixit v. State of M.P. [1986 (II) MPWN 58], it is necessary to require written instructions of applicants or litigants coming forward on behalf of an accused. 6. In my considered opinion, even after issuance of such directions in the year 1986, in above cited decision of this Court, no compliance was ensured anywhere in matters of bail applications. It is, therefore, necessary to issue fresh guidelines for future compliance taking into consideration the view expressed in Hari Mohan's case (supra). 7. The purpose behind obtaining written instructions from the client is to ensure the safety of an advocate in order to check the recurrence of any unhappy situation like the present one. Secondly, in case of any mischief, proper action can be taken against a person who provides any wrong information. 8. It is hereby made clear for future guidance that in an application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. full particulars of the person or persons be given from whom the counsel of applicant has received written instructions to file the application, clearly indicating the number with results of the earlier applications moved on behalf of an accused. 9. Let a copy of this order be sent to all the Sessions Judges of the State to ensure compliance of this direction, indicated hereinabove, from Ist January, 2000.