ORDER 1. Mr. Sidharth Luthra, learned senior counsel submits that while a large number of High Courts have filed their compliance report, no compliance report has been filed by the High Courts of Andhra Pradesh, Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh, Rajasthan and Tripura. Learned counsel appearing for the High Court of Tripura submits that he filed it yesterday and naturally it is not on record. Learned counsel appearing for the High Courts of Jammu & Kashmir, Ladakh and Rajasthan request for a week's time to file the report. High Court of Andhra Pradesh is unrepresented. Let notice be issued to the Registrar of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh as to why no arrangement has been made for representation before this Court. 2. Now turning to the states which are yet to file the compliance report. It appears that hardly any of the states have filed the report. The States who have not filed or at least not given a copy to Mr. Sidharth Luthra's office are thirty in number, which are as under:- 1. Andhra Pradesh 2. Assam 3. Bihar 4. Chhattisgarh 5. Goa 6. Gujarat 7. Haryana 8. Himachal Pradesh 9. Jammu and Kashmir 10. Jharkand 11. Karnataka 12. Kerala 13. Madhya Pradesh 14. Manipur 15. Meghalaya 16. Mizoram 17. Odisha 18. Punjab 19. Rajasthan 20. Sikkim 21. Telangana 22. Tripura 23. Uttar Pradesh 24. West Bengal 25. Andaman and Nicobar Islands 26. Dadra and Nagar Haveli 27. Daman and Diu 28. Lakshadweep 29. Pondicherry 30. Ladakh 3. The CBI has also not filed compliance report. 4. We grant two weeks' time to the CBI and the States to file their compliance report, failing which, their respective Home Secretaries will appear personally through the virtual mode. 5. Mr. Luthra submits that the model adopted for giving information by Maharashtra and Punjab & Haryana High Courts is the appropriate one in relation to the their States and others do not disclose the full information. The States as well as the High Courts are called upon to collect the affidavits of Maharashtra and Punjab & Haryana from Mr. Luthra's office and the compliance report now filed must be in that format. Three weeks' time is granted to do the needful as aforesaid. 6. The States as well as the High Courts are called upon to collect the affidavits of Maharashtra and Punjab & Haryana from Mr. Luthra's office and the compliance report now filed must be in that format. Three weeks' time is granted to do the needful as aforesaid. 6. The blank format is being placed below as under to facilitate them:- Tabular Chart (giving details District and Court wise) PART A Part B S. No. District Whether compliance of the direction issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled as ' Arnesh Kumar vs State of Bihar' (2014) 8 SCC 273 is being made specially with regard to section 41 and 41 A of CrPC [para 73(b)] Whether any accused has been granted bail due to noncompliance of section 41 and 41 A CrPC [para 73(c)] Whether courts are insistin g for bail applicat ion while consider ing the bail applicat ion under section 88, 170, 204 & 209 CrPC [para 73(e)] Whether the mandate laid down in the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sidharth vs state of UP (2021) 1 SCC 676 is being strictly complied with [para 73(f)] Whether directio ns passed in Bhim Singh vs UOI (2015) 13 SCC 605 for release of Under trial Prisoner s eligible for bail under section 436A of CrPC are being complied with. [para 73(j)] Whether the regular bail applicat ion are decided within 2 weeks. [para 73(k)] Whether the anticipa tory bail applicat ion are being decided within six weeks. [para 73(k)] PART B (giving details District and Court wise) S. No. District No. of Under trial Prisoners identified who are unable to comply with the bail condition (list be also annexed) [para 73(h)] Whether the under trial prisoners mentioned in column 3 have been informed about their right u/s 440 (2)CrPC Total no of applicat ion received under section 440(2) CrPC (list to be annexed) Number of Regular bail applicat ion not decided within 2 weeks of institut ion. Number of anticipatory bail application not decided within six weeks of institution. 7. One last thing which is pointed out by Mr. Luthra is that despite the judgment of this Court in 'Siddharth Vs. State of U.P.' reported as (2022) 1 SCC 676 and despite reiteration of that aspect in the present case the same is being followed in breach. 8. 7. One last thing which is pointed out by Mr. Luthra is that despite the judgment of this Court in 'Siddharth Vs. State of U.P.' reported as (2022) 1 SCC 676 and despite reiteration of that aspect in the present case the same is being followed in breach. 8. The affidavits to be filed by the High Courts will incorporate whether they have been monitoring this aspect or not and whether judicial officers are not complying with this aspect. List on 21st March, 2023. 9. The judgment in the present case i.e. 'Satender Kumar Antil Vs. CBI' reported in (2022) 10 SCC 51 and the judgment in Siddharth's case (supra) should be incorporated as part of the curriculum of the State Judicial Academies and the National Judicial Academy.