JUDGMENT B.P. Jha, J. 1. The petitioner has filed the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure challenging the validity of the orders dated the 10th February, 1973 and 28th February, 1973 (Annexure A and E) passed by the learned sub-divisiona1 Magistrate, Sadar, Patna and by Shri M.N. Jha, Judicial Magistrate, Sadar, Patna. By order dated the 10th February, 1973, the learned Sub-divisional Magistrate, Sadar Patna directed that the petitioner be sent to "After Care Home, Arfabad, Patna City." By order dated the 28th February, 1973 the learned Magistrate again remanded the petitioner to the "After Care Home". 2. The validity of these orders have been challenged on the ground that the impugned orders arc illegal and without jurisdiction as the learned Magistrates have not been vested with such power under authority of law. In my opinion the contention of the counsel is well founded. 3. The relevant facts of this case are as follows–On the 9th August, 1972, the complainant Kailash Bihari Shrivastav lodged a complaint petition against one Rambachan Ram for enticing away his alleged wife Shrimati Prabha Shrivastav (the petitioner) from his house with intent to marry her. On the complaint petition the learned Sub-divisional Magistrate took cognizance of the offence on the same day and transferred the case to Shri M.N. Jha, Judicial Magistrate. On the 2nd February, 1973 Shri Kailash Bihari Srivastava filed a petition before Shri M.N. Jha, Judicial Magistrate for a direction that a search warrant for the arrest of the petitioner be issued. The Magistrate issued the search warrant. In pursuance of the search warrant she was arrested and produced by the Officer Incharge of Simri police station on the 10th February, 1973 before the Sub-divisional Magistrate, Patna. On the same day the learned Sub-divisional Magistrate, Patna directed that the petitioner be sent to the "After Care Home" Arfabad, Patna City. 4. The petitioner was produced before us and she was examined by us in the court room. She has given her age as 28 years and she has also given an undertaking that she will appear before the Magistrate whenever required by him. 4. The petitioner was produced before us and she was examined by us in the court room. She has given her age as 28 years and she has also given an undertaking that she will appear before the Magistrate whenever required by him. In her statement she has also stated that after her release from the custody of the "After Care Home" she will stay at the residence of Shri Baleshwar Prasad of mohalla Mehdiganj, Patna City, District Patna and this will be her permanent address. 5. The admitted position is that she is a major and her age is 28 years. The only question for consideration is whether the Magistrate has jurisdiction to direct a major lady to be sent to "After Care Home" when she is produced in pursuance of a search warrant issued under section 100 of the Code of Criminal Procedure? Counsel for parties could not point out any provision of jaw under which she could be kept in "After Care Home". It is also relevant to note that at present the petitioner is neither an accused nor a witness. It is the settled law that no person can be detained without the authority of law. In this view of the matter, the impugned order dated 10.2.1973 and 28.2.1973 (Annexure A and E) passed by the Sub-divisional Magistrate, Sadar, Patna and by Shri M.N. Jha, Judicial Magistrate are hereby quashed for the simple reason that they have no such authority under law to give such direction. This point is also covered by a decision of this court in Lalmani Devi vs. State of Bihar, A.I.R. 1957 Pat 689=1956 B.L.J.R. 235. 6. In the result the petition is allowed and the petitioner is directed to be released from "After Care Home" forthwith. I agree. Application allowed.