JUDGMENT 1. - This bail application has been moved by petitioners Birbal, Badar Ram and Sohanaram under section 439 Cr.P.C. The accused petitioners are standing trial before the Sessions Judge, Merta in respect of offences under sections 302, 307, 325, 323, 341, 147, 148 and 149 I.P.C. The case was fixed before the Sessions Judge for hearing of arguments and for framing of charges on August 11, 1982 and the petitioners have submitted that on that date the Sessions Judge was on leave and that the accused petitioners were produced before the Court and the Reader of the Court of Sessions adjourned the case to August 25, 1982. The petitioners have submitted that the Reader of the Court of Sessions bad no authority to remand the petitioner to judicial custody and that their detention subsequent to August 11, 1982 is without authority of law and, therefore, they should be released on bail. On the aforesaid application filed by the petitioners this Court by order dated August 19, 1982 asked for the report of the Sessions Judge, Merta and a report from the Sessions Judge, Merta has been received. In the said report the Sessions Judge has stated that he was out of station from July 29, 1982 to August 15, 1982 & that before leaving the headquarters he had passed an order under section 10(3) Cr.P.C. authorising the Additional Sessions Judge, Nagaur to dispose of the urgent criminal matters. In the report aforesaid, the Sessions Judge has further stated on August 11,1982 the accused petitioners alongwith other accused persons Manguram and Shankerlal were produced from Judicial custody in the court and since the Sessions Judge was away on duty the file was produced for signatures before the Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Merta & that the order remanding the accused petitioners to judicial custody was passed not by the Reader of the Court of Sessions but by the Magistrate 1st Class, Merta. In the said report the Sessions Judge also stated that the urgent criminal work requiring the exercise of the powers of the court of Sessions Judge is disposed of by the Additional Sessions Judge, Nagaur but the routine work is looked after by the Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Merta and that is the practice followed in the court and there if the orders of remand are required to be signed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Nagaur, then a great difficulty would be caused in that the files would have been taken from Merta to Nagaur in his absence. 2. Shri Choudhary has submitted that passing an order remanding the accused petitioner to judicial custody under section 309(2) Cr.P.C cannot be regarded as a routine matter that it was matter which was to be disposed of by the Sessions Judge and in the absence of he Sessions Judge the order of remand could only be passed either by the Additional Sessions Judge or by the Chief Judicial Magistrate so authorised under sections 9(5) Cr.P.C. to 10 (3) Cr.P.C. The submission of Shri Choudhary was that since the order of remained dated 11th August, 1982 was passed by the Judicial Magistrate who was not competent to pass such an order, the detention of the accused petitioners is illegal after August 11, 1982 and the accused petitioners are entitled to be released on bail. The learned Public Prosecutor as well as Shri R.N. Bishnoi the learned counsel for the complainant were not able to show any provision where under the Judicial Magistrate is entitled to pass an order of remand under section 309(2) Cr.P.C. in respect of matter pending before the court of Sessions The question as to whether a Judicial Magistrate can pass an order of remand under section 309(1) Cr.P.C in respect of the matter pending before the court of Sessions, was considered by me in Bosu alias Gurbux Singh v. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Cr. Misc. Bail application No.455/82 3-8-1982 . In that case I have held that a Judicial Magistrate is not competent to pass an order of remand under section 309(2) Cr P.C. in respect of a matter pending before the Court of Sessions. Misc. Bail application No.455/82 3-8-1982 . In that case I have held that a Judicial Magistrate is not competent to pass an order of remand under section 309(2) Cr P.C. in respect of a matter pending before the Court of Sessions. It must therefore be held that the order dated August 11, 1982 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Merta remanding the accused petitioners to judicial custody was not a valid order of remand the detention of the accused petitioners subsequent to August 11, 1982 cannot be held to be illegal. 3. Before concluding, I would like to observe that the point made by the Sessions Judge, Merta in his report about the difficulties which are faced in District where there is no Additional Sessions Judge and Chief Judicial Magistrate at the place where the court of Sessions is located may be considered by the High Court as well as the State Government and appropriate steps may be taken to remedy the situation. 4. In the circumstances the accused petitioners are entitled to be released on bail. The bail application is, therefore, accepted and it is directed that the accused petitioners Birbal, Badarram and Sohanram may be released on bail on each of them furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 20,000/- and two sureties of Rs. 10,000/- each to the satisfaction of the Sessions Judge, Merta for their appearance before him during the trial.Bail Application accepted. *******