( 1 ) THE brief facts of the case are the 1st petitioner is the father and petitioners 2 to 6 are his sons. One Mayanna of Binnimangala village had filed a complaint against the petitioners alleging that on 23-5-94 at about 7-00 p. m. himself, his monther, brothers and others went to the house of the petitioners and questioned the 1st petitioner Thirumalegowda as to why his sons i. e. petitioners 2 to 6 quarrelled with one Billappa. At that time suddenly all the petitioners attacked the complainant and others with bats, chains, clubs and sickles and some of them received serious injuries. On the basis of the said complaint, the respondent police registered a case in Cr. No. 353/94 for the alleged offcences punishable under Ss. 143, 147, 148, 324, 307 r/w. S. 149, IPC making these petitioners as accused. Subsequently, the petitioners 1, 2, 4 and 6 were granted anticipatory bail and petitioners 3 and 5 were released on regular bail. The main grievance of the petitioners is that though the complaint was lodged on 23-5-94 the respondent police had not filed any charge sheet so far. On the other hand, the petitioners are made to appear before the Court on all the hearing dates notwithstanding the fact that the charge sheet was not filed. Therefore, they submit that necessary directions may be issued to the police either to file the charge sheet and direct the learned Magistrate not to insist upon the accused persons to appear before the Court on all the hearing dates till the charge sheet is filed. ( 2 ) HEARD the learned advocate appearing for the petitioners and the learned Addl. S. P. P. for the respondent. ( 3 ) IT is an undisputed fact that the complaint came to be filed on 23-5-1994. Even though 4 years have elapsed, the prosecution has not filed the charge sheet and no valid reason is forthcoming as to why charge sheet has not been filed. This act of the respondent police is highly deprecated. However, the police is directed to file the charge sheet within three months lest the Court shall pass necessary orders discharging or acquitting the accused in this case. This act of the respondent police is highly deprecated. However, the police is directed to file the charge sheet within three months lest the Court shall pass necessary orders discharging or acquitting the accused in this case. ( 4 ) IN the meanwhile, it is noticed that the police on arresting the accused persons and filing the FIR, the Court ordered for releasing the accused persons on bail but directed them to appear on all the hearing dates contrary to the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in AIR 1982 SC 1463 : (1982 Cri LJ 1943) Free Legal Aid Committee, Jamshedpur v. State of Bihar wherein Their Lordships have held that law does not require that an accused on bail need appear before the Court before the charge sheet is filed and process issued by the Court. Therefore, the Hon'ble Supreme Court directed the Criminal Courts whenever an accused is released on bail, he need not be required to appear before the Court. ( 5 ) IN this case the learned counsel submitted that though the accused persons were released on bail they were directed to appear before the Court on all the hearing dates. In obedience to that these petitioners are attending the Court regularly on all the hearing dates. That would definitely lead to unnecessary expenses, inconvenience, and hardship would be caused. It is nothing but a harassment as far as the accused persons are concerned. As long as the charge sheet is not filed, the presence of the accused is not required as the Court cannot proceed with the case. That being the situation, the Court after taking cognizance of the offence if it feels that the presence of the accused is necessary, shall issue summons/warrant as the case may be, to appear before the Court to take up the trial. Thereafter, it becomes incumbent on the part of the accused persons to appear before the Court to proceed with the case on all the hearing dates. But from the date of release till the charge sheet is filed, making the accused persons to appear before the Court shall be avoided. Thereafter, it becomes incumbent on the part of the accused persons to appear before the Court to proceed with the case on all the hearing dates. But from the date of release till the charge sheet is filed, making the accused persons to appear before the Court shall be avoided. In a case where the offence is exclusively triable by the Court of Session it is in-cumbent on the Court to take bail bonds binding them to appear before the Court of Session, in which event on committal he would not be re-arrested and brought before the Court of Session. It is also clear from S. 209-B, Cr. P. C. that the Magistrate has discretion to release the accused on bail during and until the completion of trial even where the case is committed to the Court of Session. In a similar situation their Lordships of the Supreme Court have held that to avoid hardship to the accused, if the Magistrate while releasing the accused on bail required 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 as called upon in the Court of Session this procedure can legitimately be followed. ( 6 ) FOR the foregoing reasons, this petition stands allowed directing the petitioners to appear before the Court on receipt of summons from the Magistrate after the charge sheet is filed by the prosecution and the prosecution is directed to file charge sheet within 3 months lest the Magistrate shall pass orders as indicated above. Petition allowed. --- *** --- .