ORDER Raina, J. – 1. This is an application for grant of bail. 2. Nine persons including the applicants have been arrested for offences under sections 396/397/307 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code in connection with a dacoity which took place at the house of Bhagirath of village Bakai, police-station Bijodondi during the night preceding 1-7-76. As the police failed to file a challan within 60 days, the applicants were released on bail under subsection (2) of section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code of 1973'). The challan was subsequently filed and the case is now fixed by the trial Magistrate for passing the committal order on 27-11-1976 The Magistrate has expressed his intention to arrest the applicants and commit them to jail custody because in his view the applicants are no longer entitled to remain on bail. Being aggrieved thereby the applicants have come up before this Court for grant of anticipatory bail in case the applicants are re-arrested under the orders of the Magistrate. 3. The case of the applicants as put by Shri R.N. Rai. counsel for the applicants, is that once an accused is released on bail under the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 167 of the Code of 1973, his bail can be cancelled and be can be re-arrested only if it is shown that be had, in any manner, abused the liberty granted to him and not otherwise. He did not press for bail on any other ground. 4. An answer to the question posed by Shri Rai; depends on a proper construction of the proviso to sub-section (2) of section 167 of the Code of 1973 in the light of other provisions of the Code of 1973. It is. therefore, necessary to examine the language of the aforesaid sub-section carefully for the purpose. Sub-section (2) of section 167 reads as under :- "167. … … … (1) … … … (2) The Magistrate to whom an accused person is forwared under this section may. It is. therefore, necessary to examine the language of the aforesaid sub-section carefully for the purpose. Sub-section (2) of section 167 reads as under :- "167. … … … (1) … … … (2) The Magistrate to whom an accused person is forwared under this section may. whether he has or has not jurisdiction to try the case from time to time authorise the detention of the accused in such custody as such Magistrate thinks fit, for a term not exceeding fifteen days in the whole, and if has no jurisdiction to try the case or commit it for trial, and considers further detention unnecessary, he may order the accused to be forwarded to a Magistrate having such jurisdiction :- Provided that- (a) the Magistrate may authorise detention of the accused person, otherwise that in custody of the police; beyond the period of fifteen days if he is satisfied that adequate grounds exist for doing so, but no Magistrate shall authorise the detention of the accused person in custody under this section for a total period exceeding six days, and on the expiry of the said period of sixty days, the accused person shall be released on bail if he is prepared to and does furnish bail, and every person released on bail under this section shall be deemed to be so released under the provisions of Chapter XXXIII for the purpose of that Chapter: - (b)............ (C)............ 5. Under sub-section (1) of section 167 of the Code of 1973 a person arrested and detained in custody by the police has to be produced before the Magistrate within 24 hours. Under sub-section (2) the Magistrate has been empowered to authorise the detention of the accused in such custody as he thinks fit for a term not exceeding 15 days. Under clause (b) of the proviso to sub-section (2) the Magistrate has been further empowered to authorise the detention of the accused beyond 15 days only if he is satisfied that adequate grounds exist for doing so, but in no case beyond a total period of 60 days. On the expiry of the said period of 60 days, the accused person is entitled to be released on bail if he is prepared to and does furnish bail. It is, therefore. On the expiry of the said period of 60 days, the accused person is entitled to be released on bail if he is prepared to and does furnish bail. It is, therefore. clear that under the aforesaid clause of the proviso an accused person becomes entitled to bail as of right irrespective of the nature of the offence which he may have committed if the challan is not presented within 60 days because once the challan is presented the matter is governed by sub-section (2) of section 309 of the Code of 1973 under which the Court has power to remand the accused to custody from time to time during the inquiry or trial. 6. Sub-section (5) of section 437 of the Code of 1973, provides that any Court which has released a person on bail under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2), may, if it considers it necessary so to do, direct that such person be arrested and commit him to custody. Although the aforesaid section is applicable where the accused person has been released on bail under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of section 437 of the Code of 1973 by the Court before which any inquiry or trial is proceeding, clause (a) of proviso to sub-section (2) of section 167 of the Code of 1973, lays down that a person released on bail thereunder shall be deemed to be so released under the provisions of Chapter XXXIII for the purpose of that Chapter which deals with the powers of the Court to release persons accused of offences on bail. Thus it would appear that a person released on bail under the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 167 is, for the purpose of sub-section (5) of section 437 of the Code, to be treated as a person released on bail by the Court itself and, therefore, it is open to the Court to consider under the said sub-section whether such person be arrested and committed to custody. 7. Thus on reading sub-section (5) of section 437 of the Code along with the proviso to sub-section (2) of section 167 it becomes clear that the Court has jurisdiction after the presentation of the challan to re-arrest a person released by it on bail under sub-section (2) of section 167 of the Code. 7. Thus on reading sub-section (5) of section 437 of the Code along with the proviso to sub-section (2) of section 167 it becomes clear that the Court has jurisdiction after the presentation of the challan to re-arrest a person released by it on bail under sub-section (2) of section 167 of the Code. Once it is held that the Court has jurisdiction to direct that a person on bail be arrested and committed to custody under sub-section (5) the only question that remains for consideration is whether it would be proper for the Court to do so in the absence of any allegation that the person concerned has abused the privilege granted to him. 8. Sub-section (1) of section 437 of the Code lays down that when any person accused or suspected of commission of any non-bailable offence is arrested or detained without warrant by an officer-in-charge of the police-station or appears or is brought before a Court he may be released on bail, but he shall not be so released if there appear reasonable grounds for believing that he has been guilty of an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life. It is thus clear that if there are reasonable grounds for believing that an accused person is guilty of an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life, he is not to be released on bail. This is in substance the policy of law and can very well be taken into consideration for exercising the discretion under sub-section (5) of the said section. 9. I find no merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the applicants that the Court has no power under sub-section (5) of section 437 of the Code of 1973, to direct that a person released on bail under sub-section (2) of section 167 be re-arrested and committed to custody unless it is shown that he has abused the priviledge granted to him by being released on bat!. It is true that normally bail is cancelled on such consideration, but where bail is granted on grounds which have ceased to be operative or have lost their validity, it is open to the Court to exercise its discretion under sub-section (5) of section 437 of the Code of 1973. 10. It is true that normally bail is cancelled on such consideration, but where bail is granted on grounds which have ceased to be operative or have lost their validity, it is open to the Court to exercise its discretion under sub-section (5) of section 437 of the Code of 1973. 10. An accused person becomes entitled to bail under sub-section (2) of section 167 at the Code irrespective of the nature of the offence committed by him on the expiry of the period of 60 days after his arrest because the Magistrate has no power to keep him in detention thereunder unless the accused is not in a position to furnish bail The purpose of the proviso to sub-section (2) of section 167 of the Code seems to be to insist on speedy investigation and presentation of the challan within 60 days, so as to avoid unnecessary detention of the accused during investigation. The purpose of sub-section (2) of section 167 of the Code is a limited one and it cannot be construed so as to negative the policy of law as embodied in sub-section (1) of section 437 of the Code of 1973 The provisions of section 167 are clearly subject to the provisions of Chapter XXXIII of the Code of 1973 and that has been made abun-dently clear by expressly laying down in the proviso to sub-section (2) of section 167 that a person released on bail thereunder shall be deemed to be so released under the provisions of Chapter XXXIII of the Code of 1973. 11. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court had occasion to construe section 167 of the Code of 1973 in Natabar Parida v. State of Orissa, AIR 1975 SC 1465 . Their Lordships made the following observations in paragraph 8 which are pertinent- "But then the command of the Legislature in proviso (a) is that the accused person has got to be released on bail if he is prepared to and does furnish bail and cannot be kept in detention beyond the period of 60 days even if the investigation may still be proceeding. In serious offences of criminal conspiracy murders, dacoities, robberies by inter-state gangs or the like, it may not be possible for the police, in the circumstances as they do exist in the various parts of our country, to complete the investigation within the period of 60 days. In serious offences of criminal conspiracy murders, dacoities, robberies by inter-state gangs or the like, it may not be possible for the police, in the circumstances as they do exist in the various parts of our country, to complete the investigation within the period of 60 days. Yet the intention of the Legislature seems to be to grant no discretion to the Court and to make it obligatory for it to release the accused on bail. Of course, it has been provided in proviso (a) that the accused released on ball under section 167 will be deemed to be so released under the provisions of Chapter XXXIII and for the purposes of that Chapter. That may empower the Court releasing him on bail, if it considers necessary so to do, to direct that such person be arrested and committed to custody as provided in sub-section (5) of S. 437 occurring in Chapter XXXIII." It is clear from the aforesaid observations that it is open to the Court releasing an accused on bail under sub-section (2) of section 167 of the Code to direct that he may be re-arrested and committed to custody under sub-section (5) of section 437 of the Code of 1973. 12. The Magistrate has; therefore, ample power under sub-section (5) of section 437 of the Code of 1973 to direct that the applicants be arrested and committed to custody. 13. The application, therefore, fails and is hereby dismissed.