By the Court.—We have perused the explanation submitted by the Registrar General of the Court dated 15.10.2012 who has, inter alia, submitted that “reconstruction has been carried out and the reconstructed copy has been placed on the record of the case.”

However, we find a copy of the note submitted by the Registrar (Criminal) which is dated 15.10.2012 as also the Section Officer of Criminal Appeal ‘Group-’A’ submitting that there was no provisions in the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 regarding the construction of misplaced/lost records.

2. We want to examine this issue also, but first the prayer for bail has to be considered.

We have heard Sri U.K. Saxena, learned counsel appearing on the second prayer for bail of appellant, Chandrama Prasad whose first prayer for bail was rejected by the Court by an order passed on 04th January, 2008. We have also heard learned AGA appearing on behalf of the State.

The submission is that all accused persons are said to have chased the injured and the victim from a polling station and are said to have fired at them in which course, deceased Yashwant Singh also received injury and while he was being treated in hospital, succumbed to them. Submission is that inspite of the general allegation reiterated by other witnesses, P.W. 2 was specifying that it was this appellant whose shot hit the deceased. But it appears that the claim of the witnesses could be doubtful as there were at least 8 to 9 other injuries on the dead body about which there was no explanation coming from the prosecution.

3. Considering the initial prosecution story of imputing general and omnibus allegation against all the accused persons equally that they were armed with fire-arms and further considering the submission regarding the presence of injuries on the dead body which could be caused by weapons other than firearms, we direct the release of the present appellant-Chandrama Prasad on bail, during pendency of appeal, on furnishing a bond of Rs. 20,000/- with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 22, Allahabad in connection with Sessions Trials No. 92 of 2006.

As regards sentence of fine imposed upon the above noted appellant, realisation thereof shall remain stayed till further orders.

4. Now, we want to consider the note submitted by the Registrar (Criminal) regarding the absence of specific provision in the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 regarding reconstruction of misplaced/lost records. The Registrar Criminal by his note dated 15.10.2012 reported, inter alia, as under:

“By means of the above office note, it has been submitted that there is no specific provision in the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 regarding reconstruction of misplaced/lost records, and in absence thereof, the prevalent practice is that the office prepares photocopy of the misplaced records from the copy of counsel for appellant and thereafter, the matter is listed before the Hon’ble Court for allowing the said photocopy of the record to be treated as original (reconstructed) copy of the appeal. The office has submitted that it was in this background that it had listed the said case before the Hon’ble Court”

As per above report, the above officer of the registry has attempted to impress upon us, as may be apparent from his note, that there was no specific provision regarding re-construction. It is true that there is no procedure set down by any provision as to how a lost or misplaced record has to be reconstructed but as may appear from the above part of the note by the officer, reconstructing a record has a prevailing practise in this Court also. We are of the view that officer was not fully aware with the Rules of the Court referred to by him. In our opinion there are sufficient rules indicating that it has to be officers of the registry who could be taking due steps with appropriate diligence for reconstructing the record if it be lost or misplaced entir