JUDGMENT - ASHOK AGARWAL, J.:---This petition contains a grievance similar to the one contained in Criminal Applications No. 495 and 534 of 1987 which were disposed of by my judgment dated the 13th July, 1987. The grievance being that the accused who has once been granted bail after his arrest during investigation should not be directed to offer bail at over again after process is issued on a complaint being filed against him. According to the petitioner the bail already granted to him should be held to enure to his benefit till the final disposal of the case and the practice of calling upon the accused to furnish bail at different stages of the prosecution such as during investigation, after issue of process, after the order of committal to the Court of Sessions was not warranted by any law and practice in that behalf and the said practice causes harassment to the accused for no advantage to the prosecution. I have in the aforesaid judgment held that an accused once released on bail need not be required to offer bail at the aforesaid subsequent stages of prosecution as the bail offered by him would continue to enure to his benefit till the final conclusion of the trial. I have further held that the prevailing practice calling upon the accused to offer bail and furnish security at different stages of the prosecution causes considerable inconvenience and harassment to the accused without any corresponding advantage so far as the administration of criminal justice is concerned and that practice, which has no justification, should be discontinued. I have also held that the bail bonds executed by the accused and the sureties furnished by him continue to subsist till the final conclusion of the trial. 2. Shri Gupte, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 1 the Assistant Collector of Customs, has sought to urge some additional grounds in an attempt to persuade me to take a view contrary to the view taken by me in the aforesaid judgment. He submitted that as in the present case after a complaint is filed by the respondent No. 1 under section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Magistrate has an unfettered discretion to issue process in a summons case by issuing summons and in a warrant case by issuing a warrant either bailable or non-bailable. He submitted that as in the present case after a complaint is filed by the respondent No. 1 under section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Magistrate has an unfettered discretion to issue process in a summons case by issuing summons and in a warrant case by issuing a warrant either bailable or non-bailable. In his submission it was open to the Magistrate, after considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, to determine the amount of bail which the accused was required to furnish. He reiterated that on the accused being produced before the Magistrate in execution of a warrant as contemplated under section 204(1)(b), the bail bond as also the surety furnished earlier stood cancelled and consequently the accused was bound to furnish fresh bond and surety. 3. Shri Gupte, on placing reliance on section 71 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, submitted that any Court issuing a warrant of arrest may in its discretion determine the amount of the bond or the sureties that an accused would be required to furnish for the purpose of securing the attendance of the accused. He laid emphasis on sub-section (2) of section 71 which speaks of the endorsement to be made on the warrant in regard to the number of sureties and the amount of the sureties the accused are to furnish. According to Shri Gupte the discretion of the Magistrate both under section 204 as also section 71 of the Code is unfettered and there was no justification either to limit or cirumscribe the said discretion. 4. In my judgment, there is no substance in any of the aforesaid contentions of Shri Gupte. Where an accused is released on bail during the progress of investigation, it is by an order of bail passed by the Magistrate or by his superior Court. When the complaint is filed and the Magistrate chooses to issue process, unless there are good reasons to alter the amount of bail already ordered, there should arise no occasion for the Magistrate to vary the order already passed. In case there are change in circumstances, resort can always be had to section 443 of the Code. When the complaint is filed and the Magistrate chooses to issue process, unless there are good reasons to alter the amount of bail already ordered, there should arise no occasion for the Magistrate to vary the order already passed. In case there are change in circumstances, resort can always be had to section 443 of the Code. In this view of the matter the submission of Shri Gupte that the powers of the Magistrate to issue process under section 204 are independent and unfettered and there was no justification in circumscribing the said discretion is misplaced, in as much as it would always be open to a Magistrate if he considers that the bail bound deserves to be enhanced to take resort to section 443. Shri Gupte further contended that when a Magistrate chooses to issue a warrant under section 204 in an amount larger than the amount fixed by the earlier order or bail, he could be deemed to have taken action under section 443. In my view, it would not be open to a Magistrate or for that matter for any Court to take this resort to section 443 and order enhancement of the amount of bail without giving an opportunity to the accused of being heard and this is implicit in view of the principles of natural justice. The submission of Shri Gupte that the accused need not be heard before resort is had to section 443 as the accused always has a remedy of approaching the superior Court is without any substance as the same would amount to first inflicting harm and leaving the accused to find his remedy in the superior Court. That can hardly be said to be following the principles of natural justice and fairplay. 5. In the result, on the reasoning mentioned hereinabove and the one contained in my aforesaid judgement date 13th July, 1987, the petition is allowed and the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate is directed not to take the petitioner in custody and call upon him to furnish fresh bail bond. Instead, the petitioner shall continue on the same bail both before the proceedings before him as also during the trail before the Sessions Court if the case is committed to that Court Rule is made absolute. Petition allowed. -----