Short Note : 1. The applicants were arrested by the police pending investigation of offences punishable under sections 394, 397 and 363 of the Indian Penal Code. The challan could not be filed within a period of sixty days of their arrest and the Sessions Judge granted bail under the proviso to section 167 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Later, the charge sheets were filed alleging commission of offences under sections 394, 397 and 363 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Magistrate committed the case for trial to the Court of Sessions as, in his opinion, the evidence taken by the investigating agency disclosed prima facie that the applicants had committed offences which were punishable with life imprisonment and were exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions. He also cancelled the bail granted earlier, the applicants then moved the Court of Sessions, but without success. It was contended that when under section 167 (2) bail was granted, it would be deemed to be under Chapter XXXIII of the Code of Criminal Procedure and all provisions relating to bail would be applicable. Therefore, when the learned Magistrate cancelled the bail it could be only under sub-section (5) of section 437. Therefore since the bail was granted by the Sessions Judge, it could not be cancelled by the Magistrate. Held: Section 209 of the Code of Criminal Procedure empowers the Magistrate to remand the accused to custody during and until the conclusion of the trial. This power is to be exercised subject to the provisions of the Code relating to bail. But the language used in sub-section (b) of S. 209 has to be given its full force and by doing so, it would also accord with the spirit and reason of the scheme. When earlier the bail was granted under proviso to section 167 (2) it was intended that the accused be not kept in custody for more than sixty days after his arrest even though the investigation had not been completed, However, after the magistrate had come to a conclusion under section 209 that the offence was exclusively triable by a Court of Sessions, it is reasonable to think that the accused was intended to be taken into custody as now the material collected by the investigating agency disclosed that the accused applicants have committed a henious offence. Again, the words subject to the provisions of this Code relating to bail' would mean that the Magistrate could exercise powers subject to such exceptions as were provided under the Chapter relating to bail. That is to say, he was not precluded from considering the case of an accused who was under the age of 16 years or any sick or in firm person or in case of a woman accused as provided under the proviso to sub-section (1) of section 437. This Court therefore, is of the opinion that the Magistrate was required to take the accused in custody despite the fact that they had been granted bail earlier by the order of a superior Court under section 167 or any other provision. This would be given effect to clause (b) of section 209 and it was not a question of bail. Sheobachan pandy and others v. State, AIR 1951 Patna 82, relied on. Natabar Parida and others v. State of Orissa, AIR 1975 SC 1465 , Ram Murti and another v. State, 1976 CrLJ 211 , Premraj and another v. State of Rajasthan, 1976 CrLJ 455; Seoti and others v. Rex, AIR 1948 All. 366 referred to. Revision dismissed.