Chandramauli Kr.Prasad, J.

1. This application has been filed for quashing the orders dated 21.2.2002 and 20,3.2004 passed by the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Patna in Sessions Trial No. 102 of 1997 whereby he had cancelled the bail bonds of the petitioners and directed for issuance of bailable and non-bailable warrants of arrest against them respectively.

2. Short facts giving rise to the present application are that the petitioners are accused in a case in which they have been charge sheeted under Secs. 147, 148, 149, 302, 307 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 . They were granted bail in the case even before the case was committed to the Court of Session. Ultimately, they were committed to the Court of Session by the Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Patna by order dated 25.11.1996.

3. It is relevant here to state that the learned Magistrate, while committing the case to the Court of Session, did not indicate any date of appearance of the petitioners. It came up for consideration before the learned Session Judge on 5,2.1997, who directed that the same be put up in serial order. The Sessions Judge, by order dated 7.6.1997, transferred the case to the court of 3rd Additional Sessions Judge for disposal. By orders of different dates, the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, directed for issuance of summons. There is nothing on the record to show that summons, in fact, were served on the petitioners but by the impugned order dated 21.2,2002, the learned Judge, cancelled the bail bonds of the petitioners and directed for Issuance of bailable warrants of arrest. Thereafter also, the record does not suggest that bailable warrants of arrest were served on the petitioners and by the impugned order dated 20.3.2004, he directed for issuance of non-bailable warrants of arrest.

4. Mr. Ramesh Prasad Singh, appearing on behalf of the petitioners, submits that once petitioners were granted bail before the case was committed to the Court of Session, at the time of the commitment of the case. the committing court, i.e. the learned Magistrate, had not given any date of appearance before the Sessions Court and in that view of the matter, petitioners could have appeared only after the service of summons on them by the Sessions Court. He points out that although the learned Judge had directed for issuance of summons and non-bailable warrants of arrest, but those were not served at all, still their bail bonds have been cancelled and ultimately, non-bailable warrants of arrest have been issued. He submits that without service of summons, the bail bonds ought not to have been cancelled and non-bailable warrants of arrest ought not to have been issued.

5. As the bail bonds of the petitioners have been cancelled and non-bailable warrants of arrest issued without service of summons. I am of the opinion that those orders cannot be allowed to stand. Accordingly, I direct the petitioners to appear before the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Patna in Sessions Trial No. 102 of 1997 within two weeks from today and furnish fresh bail bonds of Rs. 10.000.00 (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each and they doing so, be released on bail.

6. This case has brought before me a peculiar practice, followed by the committing courts while committing the case to the Court of Session. It is stated that the Committing Courts, while committing the case, do not fix any date of appearance of the accused persons and it is the Sessions Court where the case is committed for trial, take steps for appearance of the accused persons by issuing summons, bailable warrants of arrest and non-bailable warrants of arrest.

7. It is common knowledge that this had unnecessarily burdened the Sessions Court and its offices and hence, I had requested the learned Advocate General to enlighten me as to whether there is any legal impediment in the way of the Committing Courts in fixing the date of appearance of the accused before the Session Court, while committing the case