Judgment :- 1. Petitioner is a resident of Badagara Taluk. She, a1ongwith her husband, is alleged to have committed offence u/s. 420 read with S.34 IPC. Mundakkayam Police registered crime 95/88 against her and her husband. They sent F.I.R. to the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Kanjirappally. Petitioner was arrested from her residence at Azhiyoor in Calicut district on 31-8-1988. She was produced before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kanjirappally on 1-9-1988. Police applied for remand till 15-9-1988. In the remand application it was alleged that first accused has not been arrested and that in case she is released it will obstruct the investigation of the case. She was remanded to judicial custody. On 3-9-1988 she applied for bail. Learned Magistrate granted her interim bail. Thereafter petitioner was directed to appear in court on days to which the case stood posted. She was also directed to appear before the Circle Inspector of Police on all Mondays. This caused very great hardship to the petitioner. Police have not completed the investigation and filed charge sheet. Hence this petition praying inter alia for quashing the proceedings before court wherein she is being directed to be present in court in connection with the crime case pending investigation by the police. 2. When this petition came up for orders on 28-7-1989 this court directed the Magistrate to report the reason why petitioner is being directed to appear in court on dates to which the crime case is posted. He was also directed to report whether crimes registered by the police are given postings in his court and are being adjourned from time to time. In pursuance to that direction learned Magistrate sent up a report. That report gives the following details: Petitioner was produced before the learned Magistrate on 1-9-1988 with a remand report for detaining her in Sub Jail, Ponkunnam till 15-9-1988. ' In pursuance to that remand application, petitioner was sent to the Sub Jail, Ponkunnam. On 3-9-1988 she moved C.M.P. 2369/88 for release on bail. On that day the A.P.P. was absent. So interim bail was granted till 8-9-1988. Sureties were persons residing outside the jurisdiction of that court. They had not produced tax receipt or solvency certificate. But they remitted the amount of bond of Rs.3000/- u/s. 445 of the Code. On 8-9-1988 petitioner appeared in court. A.P.P. was also present, petitioner filed application for bail. So interim bail was granted till 8-9-1988. Sureties were persons residing outside the jurisdiction of that court. They had not produced tax receipt or solvency certificate. But they remitted the amount of bond of Rs.3000/- u/s. 445 of the Code. On 8-9-1988 petitioner appeared in court. A.P.P. was also present, petitioner filed application for bail. Interim bail granted was extended to 22-9-1988 with a direction that she should appear before the Circle Inspector of Police, Crime Detachment, Kottayam on all Mondays at 11 a.m. The case was adjourned to 22-9-1988. On that day she was present in court. Interim bail was extended till 12-10-1988. On 12-10-1988 also she was present before court. Interim bail was again extended till 26-10-1988. Direction to appear before the investigating officer on Mondays was vacated. On 26-10-1988 petitioner was present in court. Interim bail was extended further till 21-11-1988. On 21-11-1988 petitioner was absent but applied for time. The case was adjourned to 15-12-1988. On 15-12-1988 also she was absent. She applied for adjournment. The case was posted to 29-12-1988.On29-12-1988 petitioner applied with medical certificate. The case was then adjourned to 12-1-1989. On 12-1-1989 she was present in court. Learned Magistrate extended interim bail till 30-1-1989. On 30-1-1989 when the petitioner appeared before court, the interim bail was again extended till 20-3-1989. On 20-3-1989 petitioner again appeared before court. Bail was made absolute and gave a posting to the case to 29-4-1989. On 29-4-1989 petitioner was absent but applied for time. Then the case was posted to 30-6-1989. On that day also petitioner was absent. She applied for adjournment. Then the case was posted to 28-7-1989. On 28-7-1989 she was present in court. Then the learned Magistrate directed her to appear on receipt of summons and her application for bail was closed. According to the learned Magistrate offence charged against the petitioner is non-bailable. Investigation is pending. Therefore, she was directed to appear in court on dates to which the case was posted. He further states that in crime cases when accused are arrested and produced with remand report or when accused surrender in bailable offences, bail is granted and they are directed to appear on summons. Investigation is pending. Therefore, she was directed to appear in court on dates to which the case was posted. He further states that in crime cases when accused are arrested and produced with remand report or when accused surrender in bailable offences, bail is granted and they are directed to appear on summons. In non-bailable offences interim bail is granted and crime case is posted to another date for hearing of A.P.P. After hearing both sides, bail is made absolute and postings are not given and accused are directed to appear on summons. This is the usual practice. But in some grave crime cases, according to the learned Magistrate postings are given and crime case is adjourned from time to time. 3. As per proviso to S.437(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, learned Magistrate ought to have released petitioner on bail. Instead of releasing her on bail he remanded her to judicial custody. She was detained in custody for 2 days. Thereafter she was released on interim bail. She was directed to appear before court after five days, the sureties having deposited the entire money covered by the bond invoking the provisions contained in S.445 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. On 8-9-1988 when she appeared before court A.P.P. was present. Instead of hearing petitioner's application for bail, learned Magistrate extended interim bail for another 14 days. Petitioner was directed to appear before Circle Inspector of Police, Crime Detachment, Kottayam on all Mondays. Interim bail granted was extended for a total period of 7 months. She was forced to appear in court on 11 occasions when the crime case was given posting. Even after making the interim bail absolute, learned Magistrate insisted on her appearance in court on dates to which the crime case was adjourned. This practice adopted by the learned Magistrate is an abuse of process of court. He was acting without jurisdiction. Petitioner being a lady should have been released on bail on the very day she was produced before him. Instead of that, learned Magistrate remanded her to custody and two days later granted interim bail for shorter durations and directed her to appear before the Circle Inspector, Crime Detachment, Kottayam, on all Mondays. This direction has resulted in harassment to the petitioner. Instead of that, learned Magistrate remanded her to custody and two days later granted interim bail for shorter durations and directed her to appear before the Circle Inspector, Crime Detachment, Kottayam, on all Mondays. This direction has resulted in harassment to the petitioner. She, a resident of Azhiyoor in Calicut district had to undertake journey to Kottayam once in every week and then to Ponkunnam to appear before court on short intervals. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor has not placed before me any provision of law which authorises the Magistrate to grant interim bail for short durations successively. In the instant case petitioner was granted interim bail successively for a period of seven months. When an application for bail is moved by an accused and the court finds that the accused is to be granted bail, he should be released on bail after hearing the prosecution. If the prosecution is not ready to present all tacts before court the Magistrate may release the accused on bail for a limited periods. Immediately oh the expiry of that period, after hearing the prosecution, final order on the bail application should be passed. The practice of extending interim bail is not warranted by the Code and is to be condemned. 5. As and when police registers crime cases, report will be sent to court, if the accused are arrested they will he brought before court or the accused may surrender before court. In either case accused may apply for release on bail. If the court grants bail, there is no necessity to direct the accused to appear before court till charge sheet is filed by police. Till the police files a report as contemplated by S.173 of the Code the court is not seized of any complaint. The court is to take cognizance of the offence on the police report when it is filed. Before taking cognizance of the offence the court is not to give postings to the F.I.R.sent by the police and direct the accused mentioned therein to appear before court. It is irregular to require the accused to appear before court though he is on bail, before charge sheet is filed. The practice of directing accused to appear before court before charge sheet is filed, is only to harass the accused. In Free Legal Aid Committee v. State of Bihar (AIR 1982 SC 1463) Their Lordships condemned this practice. It is irregular to require the accused to appear before court though he is on bail, before charge sheet is filed. The practice of directing accused to appear before court before charge sheet is filed, is only to harass the accused. In Free Legal Aid Committee v. State of Bihar (AIR 1982 SC 1463) Their Lordships condemned this practice. Their Lordships directed that whenever an accused is released on bail he need not be required to appear before court until charge sheet is filed and process is issued by court. In this decision Supreme Court even condemned the practice of releasing the accused only during the pendency of the inquiry before the Magistrate in cases which are to be tried by Court of Sessions. For avoiding hardships to accused it has been directed that while releasing them on bail, bond must be taken binding them not only to appear as and when required before the Magistrate but also to appear in the Court of Sessions, when called upon to do so. The practice adopted by the learned Magistrate is unwarranted and it is against law. It was one aimed only to harass the accused. In the report it is stated by learned Magistrate that in some grave crime cases postings are given and crime case is adjourned from time to time. This practice is highly objectionable and is to be deprecated. Learned Magistrate is warned against such a course of action. He should not exercise his jurisdiction is such a manner as to harass the accused. 6. Criminal M.C. is disposed of with a direction that the learned Magistrate should not direct the petitioner to appear before his court until police files charge. The moment charge is filed, the matter must be reported to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kottayam who in turn must withdraw the case from the Judicial First Class Magistrate's court, Kanjirappally, to his court for trial. 7. A copy of this order will be sent to the Magistrate and another copy will be kept in his confidential records.