JUDGMENT 1. These two bail petitions under Section 439 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, raise a common question of law and as such both of these petitions are disposed of by the single order. 2. It has been contended on behalf of the accused petitioners that the detention of the accused petitioners in custody had become illegal as no order of remand was specifically passed o:t certain dates. The contention of the counsel for the accused petitioners is that once the detention of the accused in custody becomes illegal and the accused petitioner is entitled to be set at liberty, then any subsequent conduct or order passed by the Magistrate wall not validate an illegal detention. It has been further contended that the liberty of an individual under the Constitution is unavoidable and once the said procedure has not been followed and the detention of the accused becomes illegal then he is entitled to be released on bail. Learned counsel for the accused petitioners has placed reliance on (1) Chhitar and others V. The State of Rajasthan 1979 Cr. L.R. (Raj.-Suppl.) 32 . 3. Learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State has opposed the bail petitions. His contention is that if by subsequent orders of remand the detention of the accused petitioners has become legal then the accused petitioners are not entitled to be enlarged on bail. Learned Public Prosecutor on behalf of the State further placed reliance on (2) Kana V. The State : 1979 RLW 538 and (3) Ram Narain Singh V. The State of Delhi: and other : AIR 1953 SC 277 . 4. The respective contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor have been considered and the record of the case carefully perused. 5. In Ram Narayan Singh's case (Supra) it has been held that:- "Detention of person in custody after the expiry of remand order, without any fresh order of remand committing him to further custody while adjourning the case under Section 344, Criminal P.C. is illegal." 6. In Kana's case (Supra) it has been held as under:- "It is only the court, which can by warrant, remand the accused if he is in custody, to judicial custody, and the Reader of the court has no power to remand the accused to judicial custody u/s 389 (2) Cr. In Kana's case (Supra) it has been held as under:- "It is only the court, which can by warrant, remand the accused if he is in custody, to judicial custody, and the Reader of the court has no power to remand the accused to judicial custody u/s 389 (2) Cr. P.C. Therefore, the remand of the accused by the reader of the Court on 15-9-78, 29-9-78 and 27-11-78 and 22-12-78 cannot be said to be in accordance with law and the custody of the accused can not be said to be legal. It may be observed here that a practice appears to have developed in courts in Rajasthan, that in the absence of the Presiding Officer and even at times in his presence, the Reader of the Court remands the accused to judicial custody by mentioning "By Order" Section 09 (2), Cr. P.C. only empowers the court to remand the accused by a warrant and the powers of the court cannot be delegated to the Reader of the court. Therefore, the sooner this practice is stopped, the better it will be, otherwise, in case of remand of the accused to judicial custody by the Reader of the Court, the detention of the accused will be illegal." 7. Reliance was placed by the learned Counsel for the accused petitioners on Chhitar and others' case (Supra) in which it has been held as under:- "This is a case where the record produced before this court no where shows that there was any order of remand of the accused petitioner to judicial custody after one which was passed on 28-1-79 and which lasted upto 31-1-79 only. That being so, the accused can not be kept behind the bars in jail any further and the bail application of the accused deserved to be accepted, on the short but surest ground of illegal detention without going into the merits of the case. Since this is a new ground it was neither raised earlier in the previous bail application nor considered, the court is justified in in considering the second bail application afresh." 8. From the proceedings in these two cases it is apparent that at certain point of time the accused remained in custody without any legal order of remand passed by the Magistrate. Once an order of remand expires and a fresh order of remand is not passed then the detention becomes illegal. From the proceedings in these two cases it is apparent that at certain point of time the accused remained in custody without any legal order of remand passed by the Magistrate. Once an order of remand expires and a fresh order of remand is not passed then the detention becomes illegal. The liberty of an individual is guaranteed under the provisions of the Constitution. By a subsequent order of remand for a subsequent period, the previous order of detention which was patently illegal can not be cured. However, it is argued that the subsequent detention justified by orders of remand would cure all illegal detention. If this argument is accepted as such then the very purpose of liberty of an individual would be jeopardised. 9. For the reasons stated above I have no hesitation in holding that the detention of the accused petitioners cannot be justified under any provision of law. Thus, they are entitled to be enlarged on bail. 10. In the facts and circumstances stated above it would be just and proper that the accused petitioners, Rati Ram, Ram Singh, Deor Singh, Phool Chand, Bhagchand, Ramdhan, Badri, Chhotu, Sooraj, Sita Ram and Ram Karan, may be enlarged on bail if each one of them furnishes a personal bond in the sum of 10,000/- together with two sureties in the sum of Rs. 5,000/- each to the satisfaction of Sessions Judge, Tonk, for their appearance before the trial Court on all dates of hearing and/or as and when they are called upon to do so. *******