JUDGMENT Hon’ble Kalimullah Khan, J.—This transfer application has been filed by Km. Manisha complainant of the case under Section 407 Cr.P.C. to transfer Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 1412 of 2012 made by Chandra Pratap Singh accused in case crime no.381 of 2012 under Section 376 (G), 342, 344, 347, 323, 504, 506, 120B IPC and 3(2) V of SC/ST Act pending before the Court of learned Special Judge SC/ST Act District Etah to some other Court or some other district for disposal according to law. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties including learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 ( accused Chandra Pratap Singh ). 3. The grounds of transfer as mentioned in the accompanying affidavit is that opposite party no.2 Chandra Pratap Singh is an accused in the aforesaid case crime. He surrendered before the Court of learned Magistrate who took him into custody and rejected his bail. Thereafter the applicant applied for bail before the learned Special Judge SC/ST Act the same day. Learned A.D.G.C. (Crl.) sought time to produce the case diary and therefore, in the light of the case law Amrawati Devi and others v. State of U.P., 2004 (57) ALR 290 and Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh v. State of U.P., 2009 (3) ADJ 322, Supreme Court, the applicant who is said to be the M.L.C. in Uttar Pradesh was granted interim bail in the aforesaid heinous offence vide order dated 18.12.2012 upto 9.1.2013. The sureties filed their bail bonds and the applicant was released on the interim bail with a direction to surrender on 9.1.2013. On 9.1.2013 he did not appear in the Court and therefore, he was not taken into custody rather his learned counsel applied for adjournment on the ground that the applicant accused is under medical treatment of Dr. Rajiv Agrawal and therefore, prayer was made to extend the interim bail . Prosecution opposed as mentioned in the order dated 9.1.2013 itself, still without taking the applicant into custody and without his appearance in the Court the learned Presiding Officer, extended the interim bail upto 17.1.2013. On 17.1.2013 learned counsel for the applicant again adopted the same modus operandi and the learned Presiding Officer extended the interim bail of the applicant upto 22.1.2013 with the direction that the applicant shall remain on interim bail on the same bonds already filed. On 17.1.2013 learned counsel for the applicant again adopted the same modus operandi and the learned Presiding Officer extended the interim bail of the applicant upto 22.1.2013 with the direction that the applicant shall remain on interim bail on the same bonds already filed. On 22.1.2013 applicant did not surrender before the Court as is mentioned in the order passed on that date by the learned Presiding Officer, and again he was enlarged on interim bail upto 11.2.2013 inspite of objection made by learned A.D.G.C. (Crl.). On 11.2.2013 the learned Presiding Officer, again allowed interim bail upto 26.2.2013, although the applicant did not surrender on that date in the Court. In the same fashion he allowed interim bail on 26.2.2013 upto 8.3.2013 on the same bond already filed although the applicant did not appear or surrender in the Court. Prior to one day of the date fixed i.e. on 7.3.2013 the applicant for the reasons best known to him made an application 32-B to summon the case diary for the date fixed. This appears to be over doing in view of the fact that there was no need to make application prior to the date fixed i.e. 8.3.2013. However, on 8.3.2013 the applicant again made application 33B mentioning therein that the case diary is not available hence some other date for argument be fixed. On that date i.e. on 8.3.2013, learned counsel for the complainant made an application 35B with the request not to dispose of the regular bail application as he intends to move transfer application against the learned Presiding Officer. The said application was allowed and again without any prayer of extension of interim bail the learned Presiding Officer extended the interim bail to the applicant upto 16.3.2013. On 16.3.2013, 36B application was made on behalf of the accused Chandra Pratap Singh to adjourn the hearing of the bail application as Advocate at Etah Bar Association were on strike. No prayer for extension of interim bail was made on behalf of the accused applicant but still the learned Presiding Officer extended the interim bail to the applicant upto 30.3.2013. On 30.3.2013 learned Magistrate reported to the district Judge through application 37 B that accused Chandra Pratap Singh has now surrendered in Court and has been taken in custody. On that date prosecution made adjournment application 38B and case diary was not produced on that date. On 30.3.2013 learned Magistrate reported to the district Judge through application 37 B that accused Chandra Pratap Singh has now surrendered in Court and has been taken in custody. On that date prosecution made adjournment application 38B and case diary was not produced on that date. The said adjournment application was allowed and again applicant Chandra Pratap Singh was extended interim bail till 18.4.2013. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant has made his submissions that in view of all the aforesaid developments arbitrary and illegal orders passed by learned Special Judge SC/ST Act, Etah, the complainant applicant lost the confidence in the aforesaid learned Presiding Officer and there are reasonable grounds to apprehend that she would not get justice by the aforesaid Presiding Officer. He further stressed that notion of release on bail regular or interim connotes an idea of custody and unless the person accused of any offence is in custody he cannot be released on bail. Bail bonds are nothing but an agreement entered into in between the Court and the sureties for a particular period and after expiry of that period sureties cannot be held liable in any way on account of failure of accused to appear in Court even if the accused is extended interim bail time to time because no such undertaking was ever given by the sureties to stand sureties even for the extended period. Admittedly, the earlier bail granted by Incharge learned Special Judge SC/ST Act Etah vide order dated 18.12.2012 the applicant was released on interim bail upto 9.1.2013 and if on 9.1.2013 the applicant did not surrender before the Court then notice to the sureties must have been issued with the follow up action, but the learned Presiding Officer did nothing and he continued to extend the interim bail to the accused applicant who is MLC . The grounds pressed upon by the learned counsel for the applicant as stated above is supported by uncontroverted affidavit. 5. Explanation was sought for from learned Presiding Officer as well as learned A.D.G.C. (Crl.) concerned. Learned A.D.G.C. (Crl.) has submitted his report that on all the dates case diary was available to him but on none of the dates fixed for disposal of the regular bail application accused surrendered and on each and every dates noted above learned Presiding Officer extended interim bail to the accused applicant and every such order is wholly illegal. Learned A.D.G.C. (Crl.) has submitted his report that on all the dates case diary was available to him but on none of the dates fixed for disposal of the regular bail application accused surrendered and on each and every dates noted above learned Presiding Officer extended interim bail to the accused applicant and every such order is wholly illegal. Learned A.D.G.C. (Crl.) claims to have opposed on each and every date the extension of the interim bail but the learned Presiding Officer did not pay any heed to it and passed arbitrarily the order of extending interim bail to accused M.L.C. Chandra Pratap Singh. 6. Learned Presiding Officer has also submitted his explanation, the perusal of which shows that there was a direction dated 1.11.2012 and 6.12.2012 passed by this Court on the application No. 6523/2012 under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Awadh Pal Singh and others accused v. State of U.P., commanding the Presiding Officer to dispose of the bail application of the accused persons on the same day, if possible. The bail application of the accused Chandra Pratap Singh was made before the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Etah. The matter was pertaining to SC/ST Act , therefore, it was transferred to the Court of learned Special Judge SC/ST Act, Etah under the orders of learned Sessions Judge Etah. However, on that date learned Special Judge SC/ST Act was on leave and therefore, the matter was placed before the Incharge Special Judge SC/ST Act, Etah. In the absence of the case diary on that date the said learned Incharge Special Judge SC/ST Act released the applicant on interim bail upto 9.1.2013 and thereafter on none of the dates accused surrendered himself before the Court, but the learned Presiding Officer continued to extend interim bail to him? on the ground of his illness against every legal norms settled so far. He has tried to explain his conduct by saying that since the applicant was MLC and he was sharing his ailment and his learned counsel assured to produce on the date fixed and no documentary evidence or affidavit was ever filed by prosecution challenging the factum of ailment of the applicant therefore there was no need of getting applicant examined by the medical Board and he continued extending the interim bail to the applicant. He has further stated that since the complainant has made application on 8.3.2013 and 30.3.2013 apprising the learned Presiding Officer to make the transfer application against him, therefore again interim bail was granted to the applicant and at the last he has requested for excuse and assured that he would not repeat any such error in future. 7. I have given my conscious judicial thought over the matter in issue. 8. Custody in the context of Section 439 Cr.P.C. is physical control or at least physical presence of the accused in the Court coupled with the submission to the jurisdiction and orders of the Court. Unless the accused is in custody of the Court or physically present in the Court no bail interim or regular can be granted by a Court of law to the person who is accused of any offence. A person accused of any offence is said to be in custody not merely when the police arrests him and produce him before a Magistrate and got a remand to judicial or other custody. In the present case accused applicant ( Chandra Pratap Singh) surrendered on a single date i.e. on 18.12.2012 before the learned Magistrate and was extended interim bail upto 9.1.2013 by learned Special Judge SC/ST Act, District Etah and thereafter? more than half? dozen of dates were fixed? for his surrender before the Court and disposal of the regular bail application but on none of the dates he surrendered or appeared before the Court, still he was granted interim bail by learned Presiding Officer. It is sufficient? for the complainant? to loose the confidence in the said Presiding Officer concerned. 9. dozen of dates were fixed? for his surrender before the Court and disposal of the regular bail application but on none of the dates he surrendered or appeared before the Court, still he was granted interim bail by learned Presiding Officer. It is sufficient? for the complainant? to loose the confidence in the said Presiding Officer concerned. 9. The aforesaid fact and prevalent scenario in the Court of learned Special Judge SC/ST Act Etah coupled with the mode and manner and tactics of the learned Presiding Officer adopted to extend the unwarranted relief of interim bail to applicant whose social status is certainly elevated by virtue of his being MLC in comparison to the poor lady complaint who is a victim of this heinous offence of rape is sufficient to hold that apprehension of the poor complainant that she would not get justice from the learned Presiding Officer, if he is allowed to dispose of the regular bail of the applicant, cannot be ruled out and the factual matrix being so the grounds pointed out by the learned counsel for the applicant as discussed above are sufficient to allow the transfer application . 10. Shri Rajul Bhargava, Advocate learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and learned A.G.A. have expressed their no objection in case of transfer of the regular bail application in question to some other Court or some other district. 11. In the case of Rahmat Ullah v. State of U.P. and others, ACC 1994 (31) the Court has held that when it appears to the High Court that it is expedient in the ends of justice, the High Court has jurisdiction to transfer matters enumerated in Clauses (i) to (iv) of Section 407 (1) Cr.P.C. The legislature has taken care by using the word “case”? in clause (ii) of Section 407 (1)? Cr.P.C. If a narrow interpretation is given to the word “case” it may lead to injustice and hardship. I am of the view that the word “case” includes a variety of proceedings and is wide enough to include the proceedings of a bail application. 12. This Court cannot remain a mute spectator if it is brought to its notice that a subordinate Court is not imparting justice in an impartial manner. I am of the view that the word “case” includes a variety of proceedings and is wide enough to include the proceedings of a bail application. 12. This Court cannot remain a mute spectator if it is brought to its notice that a subordinate Court is not imparting justice in an impartial manner. Besides Section 407 Cr.P.C. this Court can exercise its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution in suitable cases to transfer cases from one subordinate Court to another. 13. In the result the transfer application is allowed. Learned Sessions Judge, Etah is directed to seize the record of Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 1412 of 2012 State of U.P. Chandra Pratap Singh for the offence at case crime no.381 of 2012 under Section 376 (G), 342, 344, 347, 323, 504, 506, 120B IPC and 3(2) V of SC/ST Act pending before the Court of learned Special Judge SC/ST Act District Etah and dispose it of himself in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible . 14. High Court has to ensure that inferior Courts discharge their duties in accordance with law. Failure to decide the bail application for such a long time and further extension of interim bail even without any request necessitate me to issue direction for all the subordinate Courts of Uttar Pradesh to decide application for regular bail within 30 days. If the accused does not cooperate with the Court, the Court will be at the liberty to reject the application for extension of interim bail and his bail application shall be heard expeditiously after taking the accused into custody. Registrar General is directed to communicate this order to the learned Sessions Judge, Etah as well as Presiding Officer/Special Judge SC/ST Act, Etah for compliance. He is further directed to circulate a copy of this order to all the Sessions Judges subordinate to this Court for strict compliance. ——————