ORDER : 1. The petitioners, who are A16, A17 and A22 in Crime No.31 of 2015 on the file of Chinna Chowk Police Station, Khammam District, filed the present applications under Sections 437 and 439 Cr.P.C. seeking enlargement on bail in the above crime, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 409, 508, 197, 120-B r/w 34 I.P.C. and Section 5 of Andhra Pradesh Protection of Depositors of Financial establishment Act, 1999 (for short ‘APPDFE Act’). 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Public Prosecutor representing the State. 3. Undisputedly, the prosecution did not file charge sheet not only within 90 days, but also, by the time the petitioners moved the application for default bail before the learned Principal Sessions Judge, kadapa, vide Crl.MP.No.1404 of 2018 by A22, Crl.MP.No.1415 of 2018 by A16 and Crl.MP.No.1416 of 2018 by A17, those were disposed of along with application of A23-T.Sundara Kumar in Crl.P.No.1403 of 2018 and by common order, dated 03-07-2018, the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Kadapa, dismissed the applications while observing the case of the prosecution in para-2 that the petitioners along with others representing M/s. Agrigold Farm Estates India Pvt. Ltd., collected deposits from innocent public by luring them at higher rates and also collected subscription amounts and failed to repay despite maturity and due date and also issued cheques, those were dishonoured and promised to give some land in lieu of the amounts deposited with interest, but, failed to comply even having deceived the public. 4. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners commonly reproduced at para-3 of the common order that the petitioners contended as innocent of neither committed any offence nor connected with the case but for false implication and they are produced on P.T. warrants and are in judicial custody for more than 90 days and are entitled to the default statutory bail, which has been provided by the statute as prosecution failed to file the charge sheet, even despite 90 days lapsed and they are ready to furnish sureties and personal bonds, as being directed by the Court and the entire investigation is completed and the question of threatening to any witnesses does not arise. 5. 5. At para-4 of the common order, the learned Sessions Judge observed that the learned Public Prosecutor strongly opposed the bail applications with contentions of they will tamper the evidence, to disappear and influence the witnesses and not possible to obtain information useful for investigation and other possibility of absconding and difficult for the investigating agency to secure if bail is granted apart from depositors suffer loss and life of about 32,00,000/- innocent depositors at stake and investigation is still pending and some more witnesses to be examined. By referring to these, having mentioned in para-5 as heard both sides and at para-6 as perused entire record including Case Diary and observed at para-7 that from perusal of the entire record with Case Diary appears charge sheet not filed, investigation not completed, the petitioners are involved in several cases, which are socio-economic offences. The accused earlier in abscondance for about 3 years and subsequently, they were caught hold of and subsequently to judicial custody and offences relating to economic offences involved crores of rupees and the petitioners/accused are Directors of the Agrigold Company against whom number of cases registered for victims are in lakhs and if they are enlarged on bail on the ground of non-filing of the charge sheet by prosecution, they will influence the witnesses and interfere with investigation and chance of lein away and the Apex Count in Central Bureau of Investigation v. Vijay Sai Reddy (1) Criminal Appeal No.729 of 2013 observed that the Court has to keep in mind nature of accusations, nature of evidence and severity of the punishment, which conviction will entail, the Character of accused, circumstances which are peculiar to accused, reasonable possibility of securing presence of accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with as criteria. Hence not inclined to grant the bail as per para-8 in dismissal as per para-9 of the said order. 6. In fact, in the bail applications, it is mentioned more particularly, in one of the grounds of common default bail order granted by this Court in Crl.P.Nos.5575, 5576 and 5596 of 2018 on 07.06.2018 to A5, A6, A8, A9, A10 and A12 by granting default bail. 6. In fact, in the bail applications, it is mentioned more particularly, in one of the grounds of common default bail order granted by this Court in Crl.P.Nos.5575, 5576 and 5596 of 2018 on 07.06.2018 to A5, A6, A8, A9, A10 and A12 by granting default bail. The same is, no doubt, not discussed referring to the facts of any of the four bail applications in the common order passed by the learned Sessions Judge as pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners. No doubt, in the said order referring to the catena of expressions including the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court that is also reported as 2018 (2) ALT (Crl.) 261 (A.P.) in the case of default bail, question of going into the merits of the matter does not arise, but for, automatic entitlement once there is an application moved from non-filing of the charge sheet within the statutory time. However, the learned Sessions Judge might not have noticed this factum from the order, if at all brought to its notice, leave about the grounds mentioned only about grant of bail and not with these facts or by enclosure of the order copy. 7. Having regard to the above, the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge is not correct in going into the merits, once entitled to the default bail, which is indefeasible right, from which, once application moved before filing of charge sheet, for, not even a case of extension or extension application filed and pending. Hence, by invoking Section 483 Cr.P.C, the dismissal order dated 03.07.2018 passed by the Principal Sessions Judge, Kadapa, is set aside and all the petitioners, who moved the default bail before the lower Court in ClI.MP.No.1403 of 2018 by A23, Crl.MP.No.1404 of 2018 by A22, Crl.MP.No.1415 of 2018 by A16 and Crl.MP.No.1416 of 2018 by A17 are entitled to the default bail. 8. Accordingly, these Criminal Petitions are allowed and the petitioners are granted default bail, with the following conditions: 1. The petitioners shall execute a self-bond for Rs.50,000/- [Rupees Fifty thousand only] with two sureties each for a like sum each to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate (Concerned Court). 8. Accordingly, these Criminal Petitions are allowed and the petitioners are granted default bail, with the following conditions: 1. The petitioners shall execute a self-bond for Rs.50,000/- [Rupees Fifty thousand only] with two sureties each for a like sum each to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate (Concerned Court). The bond to be obtained is not only to appear before the Court for enquiry or trial and even after trial to appear before the revisional or appellate Court or other superior Court - vide decision-Pre-Legal Aid Committee, Jamshedpur v. State of Delhi 1982 (2) APLJ 43 (SC); so that at the stage of committal or other proceedings obtaining of fresh bond from accused and even affidavits of sureties of bonds and solvency earlier produced are ratifying and in existence and enforceable, without even insisting further presence of the accused, such recourse quickens the proceedings at other stages before that Court or other Court without loss of time and it also to some extent complies with the requirement of Section 437A Cr.P.C. 2. The petitioners shall report once in a week before the investigating officer i.e., on every Sunday between 5.00 p.m., to 6.00 p.m., and thereafter once in a month before the Hon’ble Judge concerned, after filing of charge sheet and till completion of trial/enquiry for assurance of their availability to safeguard the interest of the prosecution of jumping bail and interference with witnesses until further orders being passed by the learned trial Judge relaxing the same, empowering him by virtue of this order. 3. The petitioner shall attend before the Court of law regularly in enquiry and trial without fail, if not their bail shall be cancelled forthwith, without any further order so that, the learned Judge concerned can also issue NBW by cancelling the bail from the power under section 439 (2) Cr.P.C. delegated by this order during pendency of proceedings before the Court. 4. The petitioners shall not leave the State pending enquiry/trial without prior permission of the learned trial Judge. 5. 4. The petitioners shall not leave the State pending enquiry/trial without prior permission of the learned trial Judge. 5. The Petitioners shall furnish their full addresses with property and bank account particulars and submit their passport/s if any, after enlargement of bail on the next hearing date before the Court concerned (for, collecting by police as part of their duty to investigate-also the means of accused and to furnish the same in the final report of investigation to enable the trial Court in the event of considering the need of awarding compensation under section 357 Cr.P.C. so to award from such material and evidence, apart from securing presence and obtaining of bond with sureties under section 437A Cr.P.C. etc.), failing which it is open to the learned judge concerned by virtue of the power conferred by this order to cancel the bail. 6. The bail now granted is since a regular one till end of trial (without prejudice to the right to cancel meanwhile in case of need and/or for non-compliance of conditions supra) any absence of petitioner/s as accused for hearing/enquiry or trail, issuance of non bailable warrant-NWB (unless cancelled before execution) and even its execution and production of accused as per the NSW; that does not tantamount to cancellation of bail including from the wording of Sec.439 (2) Cr.P.C. and as such in such event no fresh bail application can be entertained. As it tantamount to only cancellation of bail bonds earlier executed, (leave about the power of the Court to issue surety notices by forfeiting bonds and for imposing penalty on the bonds forfeited); the proper course is to direct the accused to work out the remedy to pay penalty on the previous forfeited bonds as per Sections 441 to 446 Cr.P.C. and to submit fresh solvency with self bond for enlarging them by release from custody on payment of penalty of the earlier bonds forfeited without need of enforcing against earlier sureties again. 7. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any shall stand closed.