R.C. Patnaik, J.
1. The petitioner in this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure assails the order passed by the Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Koraput, directing forfeiture of the bail bond furnished by him and issuance of non-bailable warrant of arrest.
2. The petitioner was released on bail in G. R. Case. No. 387 of 1984. The case was thereafter adjourned from time to time from 10.6.1984 awaiting submission of the final form. On 4.2.1985, the following order was passed:
' Put up today 3.2.85 was a Sunday. F. F. nor any report has been received from the I.O., Remind him to submit the same on or before 18.2.85. Accused persons are absent. No hazira today by the advocate. Issue N. B. W. against the accused persons. The bail bond furnished is cancelled. Put up on 18.2.85 for accused persons and F. F.'
3. Mrs. A.K. Padhi, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that it was not necessary for the petitioner who was released on bail to appear until charge-sheet was filed. His appearance in the Court before the filing of the charge-sheet was useless. Requiring the accused to appear on dates before the submission of the charge-sheet causes stupendous hardship. Reliance is placed on a decision of the S.C. in ( Free Legal Aid Committee v. State of Bihar ), AIR 1982 S.C. 1463.
4. When the accused is released on bail, he need not be required to appear before the Court until the submission of charge-sheet. Requiring him to appear is a meaningless ritual and a purposeless paraphernalia; but direction is given as a matter of routine requiring his appearance on dates, even before the charge-sheet is filed. In a country where a large section of the people are wage-earners and eke out their livelihood by daily labour, loss of a day or more very often results in loss of bread not only to the bread-earners but also to thing dependents. One can well imagine the suffering. In AIR 1982 S. C. 1463 (supra) the Supreme Court has deprecated the practice of requiring the accused released on bail to appear in Court until the submission of the charge-sheet in the following words.
' Mr. Sibal states that today what happens in many of the Magistrates' Courts in Bihar is that the accused is required to appear before the Court every fourteen days even though he is on bail and this causes considerable harassment to the accused. He submits and in our opinion rightly that this is not required by law and Mr. K.G. Bhagat, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the State of Bihar, fairly concedes that law does not require that an accused on bail need appear before the Court before the charge-sheet is filed and process is issued by the Court. We therefore, direct that whenever an accused is released on bail, he need not be required to appear before the Court until the charge-sheet is filed and the process is issued by the Court.'
What was prevalent in the State of Bihar is also in vogue in this State. In cases where the accused has been released on bail, the prosecution not unoften takes its own time to file the charge-sheet. The Court has no control over the prosecution except in summons cases by virtue of the power conferred under Section 167(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In view of the exhortation of the Supreme Court in the lines quoted above, the sooner the subordinate Courts throw the practice in vogue over board the better for the cause of justice.
5. The proceedings impugned in this revision disclose that the case was being adjourned from date to date till 4.2.1985 for the filing of final from. Final from was not filed even that day. The Magistrate never the less cancelled the bail bond and directed issuance of non-bailable warrant of arrest as the accused was absent and no hazira was filed by his advocate. The direction is indefensible and is quashed.
6. I would, therefore, vacate the order canceling the bail bond and quash the direction regarding issuance of non-bailable warrant of arrest. The revision is, accordingly, allowed. There would be no order as to costs.