JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. Mohammad Irfan Siddiqui, learned counsel for petitioner/applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record. 2. By means of this petition under Section 483 Cr.P.C., the petitioner has sought following reliefs :- "Wherefore, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to direct the opposite party no. 2 to release the accused immediately impugned Case Crime No. (FIR No. 93 of 2020, under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC Police Station Gomti Nagar, District Lucknow (State Vs. Anoop Kumar) as per circular (C.L. No.3/Admin.(G) dated 16.02.2009, Allahabad) issued by Hon'ble High Court for subordinate court, contained as Annexure No. 1 to this petition. It is further prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to conduct the inquiry for unnecessary delay to release accused from the jail just for disobedience the circular clear cut and also compensate to accused for unnecessary detention from the responsible authorities i.e. opposite party no. 3 of present petition." 3. Learned counsel for petitioner/applicant has submits that bail was granted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 5 Lucknow on 30.11.2021. In compliance of bail order, the applicant filed two sureties before the court concerned on 08.12.2021. Thereafter the court below sent the sureties bond for verification to the concerned Police Station and Regional Transport Office, Lucknow but when the verification of surety is not completed by the concerned Police Station and Regional Transport Office then thereafter the petitioner approached the concerned court and filed application dated 22.12.2021 along with circular of this Court with prayer to accept the bail bonds for provisional release of the applicant in the light of circular issued by this Court. 4. On 20.12.2021 both the sureties were present before the court below but the trial court failed to comply the direction issued by this Court vide Circular (C.L. No.3/Admin.(G) dated 16.02.2009) as court below neither provisionally accepted the bail bonds nor passed any order nor assigned any reason. It is further submitted that on 13.01.2022 suo motu passed the order "permitted" without any knowledge of petitioner. It is further submitted that till date the verification of the surety is still pending before the trial court regarding which the questionnaire was filed by the applicant. It is further submitted that on 13.01.2022 suo motu passed the order "permitted" without any knowledge of petitioner. It is further submitted that till date the verification of the surety is still pending before the trial court regarding which the questionnaire was filed by the applicant. As per information folio, it indicates that surety Dharam Singh status verification received from Police Station Talkatora, Lucknow on 22.03.2022, and verification of surety Shiv Bihari received from A.R.T.O., Lucknow on 22.03.2022. But the status verification of surety Shiv Bihari is still pending from Police Station concerned. Thus the verification of status is still pending since lapse of 102 days. The trial court did not call any explanation for the delay from the concerned authority nor take any suitable action against the delinquent official so, learned counsel for petitioner prays for taking appropriate action against the official in default. 5. In this regard, a detailed comments of Judicial Magistrate-I, C.B.C.I.D., Lucknow through District Judge, Lucknow was called within seven days on 08.03.2022 and the date was fixed for 21.03.2022. Again on 21.03.2022 the case was fixed for hearing but no report from the court below was received on the said date to this Court. Thereafter again a reminder was issued to trial court concerned and the report of Judicial Magistrate-I dated 16.03.2022, which was duly forwarded by District Judge, Lucknow was received but the explanation of Judicial Magistrate-I C.B.C.I.D. Lucknow was received in the office on 24.03.2022. Thus it is desirable that the District Judge, Lucknow to look into the matter and fix the responsibility of official in default. 6. As per circular, it is clearly mentioned that if the verification report is awaited within time, and the application filed for provisional acceptance of the bail bonds along with surety and prayer for provisional release of the accused then it is the bounden duty of the learned Magistrate concerned to literally comply the order of circular issued by this Court. 7. This is very sorry state of affairs. The explanation submitted by the Judicial Magistrate, C.B.C.I.D. is not convincing. Perusal of the explanation shows that the court below did not assign any reason why the provisional bail bond was not accepted. The conduct of the Judicial Officer is deprecated and warn be careful in future. 8. 7. This is very sorry state of affairs. The explanation submitted by the Judicial Magistrate, C.B.C.I.D. is not convincing. Perusal of the explanation shows that the court below did not assign any reason why the provisional bail bond was not accepted. The conduct of the Judicial Officer is deprecated and warn be careful in future. 8. The District Judge, Lucknow is hereby directed to circulate the circular (C.L. No.3/Admin.(G) dated 16.02.2009, Allahabad) issued by Hon'ble High Court for subordinate court and among other official with the direction that they do their duties as per aforesaid circular and always take action against the official in default. 9. At the outset, it is necessary to reproduce the Circular (C.L. No. 3/Admin. (G)/Dated : Allahabad: 162.2009) reads as under: "Upon consideration of the direction of Hon'ble High Court in Criminal Misc. Case No. 4356/08 Shiv Shyam Pandey versus State of U.P. and others and in the wake of receipt of representation of the Bar complaining against considerable delay taking place in respect of verification of the address and status of the sureties filed before the Subordinate Courts, the Hon'ble Court has been pleased to direct that in super session of earlier Circular Letter No.44/98 dated 20.8.1998 and Circular Letter No. 58/98 dated 5.11.1998, the following guidelines shall be followed by the Judicial Officer of Subordinate Courts:- 1. In serious cases such as murder, dacoity rape and cases falling under NDPS Act, two sureties should normally be directed to be filed and the amount of the surety bonds should be fixed commensurate with the gravity of the offence. 2. The address and status verification of the sureties shall be obtained within reasonable time, say seven days in case of local sureties, 15 days in case of sureties being of other district and one month in case of sureties being of other State, positively from the concerned Police and revenue authorities and in case of non receipt of the report within given time, the concerned Court may call for explanation for the delay from the concerned authorities and take suitable action against them and at the same time may consider granting provisional release of the accused person in appropriate cases subject to the condition that in case of any discrepancies being reported by the verifying authorities, the accused shall surrender forthwith. 3. 3. The Courts must insist on filing of black and white photographs of the sureties which must have been prepared from the negative. 4. The copies of the title deeds filed in support of solvency of status should be verified. 5. In cases where the Court feels that there are chances of plantation of drugs to implicate a person in a case covered under the NDPS Act, the amount of surety bonds may be suitable reduced. I, am therefore, to request you to kindly bring the contents of the Circular Letter to all the Judicial Officers, working under your administrative control for strict compliance of the directions." 10. Keeping in view the direction as issued in the aforesaid circular by this Court, it is desirable that all the Judicial Officers in State of U.P. shall strictly and literally comply the circular issued by this Court. Therefore, it is hereby directed that all the District Judge of Uttar Pradesh shall ensure monthly review in Monitoring Cell Meeting for pending verification of the bail bonds and sureties beyond prescribed time and also ensure whether the proper action was taken against the delinquent official. 11. With the aforesaid observations/directions this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is disposed of. 12. The Registrar General of this Court is also hereby directed to circulate the order of this Court as well as circular (C.L. No. 3/Admin. (G)/Dated : Allahabad: 162.2009) among all the Judicial Offices of Uttar Pradesh, all the revenue authorities of U.P. through District Magistrates and D.G.P. of Uttar Pradesh also directed to circulate the order of this Court to all the Police Stations of Uttar Pradesh for strict compliance.