Judgment : 1. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have come forward with this petition seeking a direction to the learned X Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, to consider and pass orders on the same day on the petition filed by the petitioners under Section 70(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure in C.C. No. 4617 of 2003 without insisting their presence 2. C.S. Dhanasekaran, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners were facing trial for the alleged offence under Section 500 I.P.C. before the learned X Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, and all the petitioners are from Andhra Pradesh State and they were not able to appear before the court on the ground that they said to have been informed by their learned counsel that the said case was already closed and there was no necessity for them to attend the case. But subsequently, they came to know that a Non-Bailable Warrant was issued against them by the learned Magistrate. It is submitted by the learned counsel that the case is a summons case and the offences alleged against the petitioners is bailable one and the absence of the petitioners on the date of the learned Magistrate issued the Non-Bailable Warrant is neither willful nor wanton but only due to the above said circumstances. It is also submitted by the learned counsel that the petitioners are willing and ready to cooperate for the proceedings of the trial of the case. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners are having apprehension that if they appeared before the learned Magistrate they may be arrested. The learned counsel also contended that for filing petition under Section 70(2) of Cr.P.C. the presence of the petitioners before the Court is not at all necessary. It is further contended that this Court may direct to recall the NBW issued by the learned Magistrate and thereafter after passing the order the petitioners may appear before the concerned Court. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners also placed reliance on the decision in a case in Valiullaz Sherif V. State by Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Nellore (2000) 3 MWN(Cr.) 28 for the proposition that the concerned petitioners need not appear in person for filling the petition under Section 70(2) of Cr.P.C. for recalling the NBW. 4. Heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. 5. 4. Heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. 5. I have carefully considered the submissions of both sides and also perused the petition and other materials available on record. 6. It is seen from the perusal of the materials that the petitioners were facing the trial for the alleged offence under Section 500 I.P.C. and they were not able to appear for one hearing as they have been informed by their counsel that the matter was already closed and thereafter they were suddenly given the information to the effect that the learned Magistrate issued Non-Bailable Warrant and the same was pending against them and therefore, the petitioners instructed their counsel to file the petition to recall the Non Bailable Warrant, but they apprehend that their presence may be insisted for the purpose of recalling the Non-Bailable Warrant while filing a petition under Section 70(2) of Cr.P.C. 7. This Court had held in a case in Valiullaz Sherif v. State by Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Nellore (supra) that the presence of the petitioners is not necessary for filing the petition under Section 70(2) Cr.P.C. to recall the Non-Bailable Warrant. In the decision, the learned Judge followed the earlier decision of this Court reported in 1995 (1) LW(Crl) 237 and yet another decision reported in 1997 (2) MWN (Crl.) 196 and in both the cases a similar view was taken by the this Court earlier also. In the very same decision a reference was made to a Judgment of a Single Judge of Andhra Pradesh High Court in a case reported in 2000 CrlL.J. 2032. 8. Therefore, in view of the principle laid down in the above said decisions, I am inclined to direct the petitioners to present the petition to recall the Non-Bailable Warrant under Section 70(2) Cr.P.C. and their counsel a may represent the case by submitting his/her arguments without the petitioners’ surrender or appearance before the Court. It is also made clear that the learned Magistrate after recalling the Non-Bailable Warrant, the petitioners shall appear before the Court regularly for all the hearings of the case without fail till the conclusion of the Trial Except on those days by filling a petitioner under Section 317 Cr.P.C. by assigning sufficient and valid reasons to dispense with their appearance. 9. This petition is ordered accordingly.