JUDGMENT P. S. Sahay, J. This application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is for the issuance of a writ or direction for the release of the petitioner from illegal detention. 2. The short facts for the purpose of this application are as follows. A first information report was lodged by Nirmal Singh, Conductor of bus No. 3327, alleging that he was coming on his bus, and at a place known as Agam Kuan there was trouble in the engine which was being repaired. The bus again started for its journey. Two persons, namely, Shankar Singh, the petitioner, and Ram Ajodha Singh, did not pay the fare: and when they started getting down from the bus at the place known as Gourichak, Ram Ayodhya Singh pulled down the driver and the petitioner inflicted a Chhura blow on his neck, due to which he succumbed to the injuries. A case was instituted and investigation was taken up by the police. It seems that the petitioner was absconder for a long time. He actually surrendered on 17.4.76. He applied for bail before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pdtna, on 17,4.76, which was rejected and it was also rejected by the Sessions Judge, Patna. This application has been filed for the grant of bail not on merits but on the ground that though he was remanded to custody on a number of dates, he was never produced before the learned Magistrate, and therefore, his detention was wholly illegal and without jurisdiction. It was specifically stated in the petition that he was not produced before the Magistrate on 17.11.76, which was in clear violation of the procedure laid down by the law, and, therefore, he was entitled to be set at liberty. In this connection, reliance was placed on a decision of our own High Court in Chandradeep Rai Vrs. The State of Bihar. 3. Mr. Ganesh Prasad Jaiswal appearing for the State has however, submitted that the Court was not in possession of the full records of the case and the petitioner might have been produced in court on the last date fixed, and if there is a valid order of remand then this application was not maintainable and the petitioner was not entitled to any relief. The herring of the case was adjourned and the lower Court records were called for, and after going through the same, it is clear that the charge-sheet was submitted on 28.1 f. 1974 and cognizance was taken On 14.11.75, and the petitioner actual is surrendered after a number of months on 17.4.76. From the order-sheet it is also clear that he was produced on a number of dates 16.6.76, 13.7.76, 16.8.76 and 14.10.76, From the order dated 17.11.76 it is also clear that he was not produced on that date, and it was ordered that the case should be put on the is. 12.76, and in the meantime copies of the documents may be supplied to the petitioner. Therefore, it is absolutely clear that on 17. 11.76 he was not produced and still the order of remand was passed. This is how the application was admitted. But from the order sheets of the subsequent dates it is also clear that he, was produced on 19.11.76 and remanded to custody till 17.2.77, but this being a holiday, the case was put up on 19.2.77. On that date he was not produced and It was ordered to be put up on 23.2.77. He was not produced on that date but was produced on 23.3.77 and he was remanded to jail custody to be produced again on 6.4.77. Thus from the aforesaid orders it is clear that there was a valid order of remand, at the time the petition was heard therefore, the contention of Mr. laiswal that the application is not maintainable seems to be correct. 4. Mr. Hari Narain Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, has raised another contention and has urged that the case was exclusively triable by the Court of Session and the Magistrate, after taking congnizance of the offence, cannot order for remand under any provision of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, In support of his contention, he has relied on a Bench decision of the Allahabad High Court in Lakshmi Brahman Vrs. State. The matter has been discussed in great detail, and it was held that in a case exclusively triable by the Court of Session the Magistrate had no power to make remand under and provision of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In my opinion, this contention put forward by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has substance and must be accepted. In my opinion, this contention put forward by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has substance and must be accepted. Mr. Jaiswal appearing on behalf of the State has not been able to satisfy us as to why the decision should not be relied upon. He, however, submitted that this point has been raised and decided in another case before another Bench and the judgment of the case was awaited, and on his submission the hearing of the case was adjourned. Even after the judgment was delivered, copy of the same was not available till a few days before the closing of the High Court for Summer: and this is how the judgment of this case has been delayed. In Ramdeo Mahto alias Sukhdeo Mahto Vrs. The State of Bihar, the point which has been decided is quite different and has absolutely no application to the facts of the instant case. In that case charge-sheet was submitted but cognizance had not been taken and still the accused persons were being remanded, and it was argued that there was no provision for order of remand beyoned the total period of sixty days under the provisions of the new Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. But, as I have said earlier, cognizance had already been taken In this case on 14.11.75 and, therefore, the decision of the above case will not be applicable to the facts of the instant case. Charge-sheet was submitted on 28.11.74, cognizance was taken on 14.11.75 and the petitioner surrendered on 17.4.76 and he has been remanded on a number of dates, which will be clear from the facts mentioned above order of commitment has not been passed in this case, though it is a format matter now under the provisions of section 209 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Under Section 167 (2) no such power can be exercised and also not under section 309 (2) of the Code. In this view of the matter, the detention of the petitioner is illegal. 5. In the result, the application succeeds and the petitioner is entitled to a writ directing his immediate release. He will be released on a bond of Rs. 5,000/- (Five Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna. 6. 5. In the result, the application succeeds and the petitioner is entitled to a writ directing his immediate release. He will be released on a bond of Rs. 5,000/- (Five Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna. 6. It is, however, made clear that in case the petitioner has been committed to the Court of Session, the order of release passed in his favour shall stand revoked. R. P. Sinha, J. J agree. Application allowed.