JUDGMENT : Dharam Chand Chaudhary, J. Consequent upon the order passed on the previous date, Mr. Gurdev Sharma, Superintendent of Police, Mandi, respondent No.3 and Mr. Ram Karan, the then, Sub Divisional Police Officer, Karsog, District Mandi, H.P, are present in person. They both admit the contents of the report (Annexure R1) to the affidavit filed by respondent No.3 on 10th April, 2018 to the effect that in the application annexed with the petition ( at page7) filed for grant of anticipatory bail by accused Inder Dev, there was no mention of the commission of offence punishable under Section 376 of IPC. However, according to them, the report to this effect is wrong and came to be made inadvertently and not intentionally and deliberately. At the same time, they both also have tendered unconditional and unqualified apology for such lapse on their part. We accept the oral apology so tendered by both the officers and drop further proceedings against them in this matter. 2. In the main matter, the Judicial Officers of the State dealing with the bail applications, be it for the grant of anticipatory or regular bail, either at interim or final stage, have been directed to ensure the presence of the Public Prosecutors attending to their respective courts. After giving information about listing of the same, such applications are considered and decided in the presence of Public Prosecutors. The Registrar (General) has also been directed to communicate the order so passed on the previous date to all the trial Judges in the State of Himachal Pradesh. 3. Additionally, the trial Judges at all level are also directed not to entertain any application for grant of anticipatory or regular bail unless copy in advance thereof is supplied to the Office of the District Attorney Cum Public Prosecutors. 4. The experience also shows that in the applications being filed either for anticipatory or regular bail, no averments that “no similar application on the same and similar grounds is either filed in that court or pending in any court of law” and if any such application filed, the necessity to file fresh application does find mention therein. 4. The experience also shows that in the applications being filed either for anticipatory or regular bail, no averments that “no similar application on the same and similar grounds is either filed in that court or pending in any court of law” and if any such application filed, the necessity to file fresh application does find mention therein. Therefore, the trial Judges at all level shall ensure that such pleadings are invariably there in the bail applications filed in their respective Courts to prevent the scrupulous persons from filing successive applications irrespective of the application filed previously was either dismissed or the liberty of bail denied. 5. We have perused the affidavit filed by Additional Sessions Judge-II, Mandi in compliance to the previous order of this court. Learned Judge has admitted the mistake he committed in the order he passed in the bail application which besides the commission of other offence the accused allegedly committed was filed for grant of bail for the commission of offence punishable under Section 376 IPC also. The mistake so committed by learned trial Judge is serious in nature for the reason that the accused, who otherwise released on bail was arrested by the police merely that Section 376 IPC was not mentioned in the order granting bail. Anyhow, having finding no reason that such mistake was intentional or deliberate, we drop the proceedings with the expectation that learned trial Judge shall be cautious in future while discharging the Judicial business in the Court, so that any such lapse that too on judicial side not recur. Accordingly, we close the present proceedings. Learned Registrar General of this Court to circulate this order amongst all the trial Judges in District Judiciary throughout the State. An authenticated copy of this order be supplied to learned Additional Sessions Judge by name for information and future guidance.