ORDER Heard Mr. Ajay Mukherjee, counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Mehta, the A.P.P. representing the State. 2. The two petitioners are accused in Singheshwar P.S. Case No. 55(5)/1981 (GR Case No. 292 of 1981) under section 396 of the Penal Code. The offence was committed on 6.5.1981. The F.I.R. was against unknown but the charge sheet was submitted in the year 1981 itself in which the petitioner was shown as one of the absconding accused. Since the petitioners could not be apprehended readily, the cases of the other accused were separated, giving rise to Sessions Trial Nos. 21, 22, 23 and 24 of 1983. It appears that all those trials were amalgamated and were finally disposed of by judgment and order, dated 5.4.1989 by the 2nd Addl. Sessions Judge, Madhepura. From the judgment of the trial court it appears that there were one accused each in S.T. Nos. 21, 23 and 24 and two accused in S.T. No. 22 of 1983. By that judgment three accused, namely, Upendra Yadav, Jagdish Gareri and Kamleshwari Mushari were convicted under section 396 and sentenced to imprisonment for life. The other two accused were acquitted by the judgment. 3. Against the judgment and order passed by the trial court in the aforesaid trials, Cr. Appeal No. 250 of 1989 has been filed on behalf of the three appellants, namely, Jagdish Gareri, Upendra Yadav and Kamleshwari Mushari. The appeal was admitted by order, dated 7.6.1989 and the appellants were directed to be released on bail. Since then it remains pending for hearing. In connection with the appeal the entire trial court records, including the police papers have been received in this court. 4. In the back drop of the aforesaid circumstances petitioner no. 1 was arrested on 5.3.2004 and petitioner no. 2 on 13.4.2004. They were produced in. court and were remanded in this case. 5. From the order passed by the court below it appears that the record of the case having been sent to this court, there is nothing before it. So much so that it was not even in a position to supply a certified copy of the F.I.R. to the petitioners. court and were remanded in this case. 5. From the order passed by the court below it appears that the record of the case having been sent to this court, there is nothing before it. So much so that it was not even in a position to supply a certified copy of the F.I.R. to the petitioners. Consequently, the present bail petition was filed without a certified copy of the F.I.R. and a copy of the F.I.R. was later made available to the counsel for the petitioner on the basis of an order passed in this bail petition by the office of this court. 6. On hearing counsel for the parties, it is evident that the petitioners do not deserve bail for the simple reason that they absconded for about fifteen years. But simply rejecting their prayer for bail would not solve the matter and would lead to many other complications. The petitioners would just remain in jail without being put on trial. 7. As noted above since the entire records, including the police papers are no longer before the trial court, it is not in a position to initiate the trial of the petitioners. 8. In those circumstances the Registery is directed to make copies of all relevant documents from the lower court records and to send them to the court below forthwith. The office will send certified copies of the court records and photostat copies duly testified to be true copies of the originals of all such documents of which certified copies are not to be issued, such as the police case diary etc. The copies of the entire records should be sent down to the court below without any delay and preferably within one month from today. On receipt of the records the Sessions Judge, Madhepura shall take immediate steps for putting the two petitioners on trial so that their trial may be concluded without any undue delay and preferably within one year from the date of receipt of the records from this court. 9. This bail petition is dismissed subject to the aforesaid observations and directions.