JUDGMENT - ASHOK AGARWAL, J.:---The petitioners in these two applications have come forth with a grievance that they having been released on bail after they were arrested and produced before the learned Magistrate should not be directed to offer bail once again after process was issued on a complaint having been filed by the respondent No. 1 under the Customs Act. According to them the bail already granted to them enured till the final disposal of the prosecution and the practice of calling upon the Accused to furnish fresh bail at different stages such as after the issue of process by the trial Magistrate or after the case is committed to the Court of Sessions was not warranted by any law and the practice in that behalf resulted in the harassment of the accused and for no advantage, especially when the bail bonds that have been executed at the stage of remand could not be said to have been cancelled. 2. In the instant case the petitioners were released from custody after orders of bail had been passed in their favour and after the petitioners had executed their bail bonds and furnished security in support thereof. It is the case of the petitioners that they continued to attend Court regularly on each date of remand after they were so released on bail. However, after the respondent No. 1 had filed his complaint against the petitioners, the learned trial Magistrate directed issued of warrant against the petitioners in varying amounts. The petitioners in execution of the said warrants came to be taken in custody whereafter the petitioners were called upon to execute fresh bail bonds and to furnish fresh security. According to the petitioners this practice of calling upon the accused to furnish fresh bail at different stages of prosecution is not warranted by any law and the bail executed by them should be treated as enuring to their benefit till the final conclusion of the trial. 3. Shri Irani, the learned Advocate appearing in support of the petition, has taken me through the relevant provisions relating to the grant of bail, and the provisions regarding issue of process and has contended that the aforesaid practice though prevalent in the State for years, should be deprecated. 3. Shri Irani, the learned Advocate appearing in support of the petition, has taken me through the relevant provisions relating to the grant of bail, and the provisions regarding issue of process and has contended that the aforesaid practice though prevalent in the State for years, should be deprecated. He further submitted that the practice of requiring the accused to attend Court periodically between the time of the grant of bail and the order of issue of process after the filing of the complaint caused serious harassment to the accused for no advantage to anyone. Reliance was placed on the Supreme Court case of (Free Legal Aid Committee, Jamshedpur v. State of Bihar)1, reported in 1982 Cri.L.J. page 1943, wherein it has been observed that whenever an accused is released on bail he need not be required to appear before the Court until the charge-sheet is filed and the process is issued by the Court. The practice in that behalf in many Magistrate Courts requiring the accused to appear before Court every fourteen days even though he was on bail was disapproved. It was further observed that in cases triable by the Court of Sessions the practice followed by the Magistrate is that when the accused is released on bail, the bail is granted to him only during the pendency of the inquiry before the Magistrate, with the result that when the case is committed to the Court Session, he is rearrested and brought before the Court of Session, where he has to apply once again for fresh bail. This causes considerable inconvenience to the accused without any corresponding advantage so far as the administration of criminal justice is concerned. It would avoid hardship to an accused if the Magistrate, while releasing the accused on bail, requires execution of a bond with or without surety, as the case may be, binding the accused not only to appear as and when required before him but also to appear when called upon in the Court of Session. A Magistrate should normally follow this procedure unless there are any particular reasons for not doing so. 4. The petitioners have annexed a copy of the bail bond executed by them while being released from custody. A Magistrate should normally follow this procedure unless there are any particular reasons for not doing so. 4. The petitioners have annexed a copy of the bail bond executed by them while being released from custody. The said proforma of the bail bond is undoubtedly faulty and was probably modelled under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 and it has not been remodelled after the passing of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. Hence the reference to section 86 of the Criminal Procedure Code as found in the said form can have no application to the present Code of Criminal Procedure. Though a period of over ten years has elapsed since coming into operation of the new Code, no efforts seen to have been made to remodel the bail bonds required to be executed by the accused. 5. In my judgment, the practice of requiring the accused to attend Court periodically after they are released on bail during investigation till the filing of the complaint under section 200 or the filing of the charge-sheet under section 190 cannot be justified as the same does not in any manner advance the administration of criminal justice and the inconvenience and the harassment thus caused to the accused by the said prevalent practice should necessarily be eliminated. Similarly the bail bonds should be so modelled as to ensure the attendance of the accused to appear not only as and when required before the Magistrate who grants the original order of bail but also to appear as and when required before any Court to which the case may be transferred or to any Court to which the case may be committed, till the final conclusion of the trial and this will eliminate the necessity of the accused being required to execute fresh bonds and furnish fresh security at different stages of the trial. A bail bonds once executed and security duly furnished should ordinarily ensure to the benefit of the accused till the final conclusion of the trial unless, in given cases, there are good reasons to be otherwise. 6. Shri Gupte appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 1 has, however, sought to urge in support of the aforesaid prevalent practice that it was advisable that the accused should be required to attend periodically so that the investigating agency can have a watch on the accused so that the accused do not abscond. 6. Shri Gupte appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 1 has, however, sought to urge in support of the aforesaid prevalent practice that it was advisable that the accused should be required to attend periodically so that the investigating agency can have a watch on the accused so that the accused do not abscond. He supported the practice of requiring the accused to furnish fresh bail at different stages on the ground that it may happen in a given case that the quantum of bail may be required to be varied after the investigation had progressed and more material collected against the accused. In my judgment, there is no substance in the aforesaid contention. Once an accused is released on bail, the accused binds himself to appear on the various dates to face his trial and in most cases the said bond executed by the accused is supported by sureties. If the accused were to choose to abscond, I fail to see how that could be prevented by securing his attendance every fortnight or so, which period is enough to enable any accused to abscond. Similarly in case of there being any change in circumstances so as to require a change in the quantum of the bail order, that can be adequately done by taking resort to section 443 of the Criminal Procedure Code. In my view it is high time that the bail bonds are suitably amended so as to ensure the attendance of the accused for the purpose of facing trial not only before the learned Magistrate who grants the order of bail, but also before any other Court to which the case may be transferred or committed. On this being done, the aforesaid harassment which is caused to the accused can be eliminated. 7. In the result, this petition is allowed and the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate is directed not to take the petitioners in custody and call upon them to furnish fresh bail bonds. Instead, the petitioners shall continue to be on bail both before the proceedings before the learned Magistrate as also during the trial before the Court of Sessions, if the case is committed to that Court. Rule absolute in the above terms. Petition allowed. -----