Judgment G. K. SHARMA, J. ( 1 ) THIS is an application under section 439, Criminal Procedure Code filed by the accused petitioner Mohan for releasing him in F. I. R. No. 116/1983. It has been argued that the detention of the petitioner in jail after 11. 7. 1983 is without authority. No remand has been obtained to keep in jail beyond 11. 7. 1983. As such detention being illegal the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail. ( 2 ) TO understand the facts I may mention that a case under section 307 Indian Penal Code was registered at Police Station Ganj, Ajmer and the accused petitioner was arrested by the police prior to 27/6/1983 and was produced before the Judge. Magistrate on 27/6/1983 for remand. The learned Magistrate remanded the accused to judicial custody upto 11/7/1983 with the direction to produce him in court on that date. On 11/7/1983 the petitioner was produced before the learned judicial Magistrate No. 1, Ajmer. It is alleged that on that the learned Magistrate did not pass any order in the order-sheet authorizing further detention of the accused. On the jail warrant It has been mentioned that the accused be produced on 26/7/1983. The petitioner moved an application before the learned Sessions Judge, Ajmer for grant of bail but that application was rejected vide order dated 16/7/1983. ( 3 ) THE only argument advanced on behalf of the petitioner is that the detention of the petitioner after 11/7/1983 is without authority and as such his detention is illegal. It is prayed that the accused be released on bail. ( 4 ) LEARNED counsel on behalf of the complainant has argued that in the order-sheet dated 11/7/83, it has been mentioned that on the request of A. P. P time was granted to file the challen on 26/7/1983. It was also argued that on the jail warrant the learned Magistrate has passed the order to the effect that accused has been produced in judicial custody. He be produced on 26/7/1983 when the challan will be produced. Thus looking to the order sheet as well as the order on the jail warrant, the intention of the court is very clear that the remand has been granted to thw accused for judicial custody up to 6/7/1963. ( 5 ) I have considered the argument. The petitioner was arrested and Section 167 (2) Cr. Thus looking to the order sheet as well as the order on the jail warrant, the intention of the court is very clear that the remand has been granted to thw accused for judicial custody up to 6/7/1963. ( 5 ) I have considered the argument. The petitioner was arrested and Section 167 (2) Cr. P. C. is with regard to grant of keeping the accused in further detention by the Magistrate. The provision of this section is very clear and when an accused is forwarded under this Section the Magistrate will authorize the detention of the accused in such custody as the Magistrate thinks fit for a term not exceeding 15 days in a whole. It means under this Section the accused can be remanded to police custody for a term not exceeding 15 days in whole. Thereafter if the police further requests for remand the Magistrate is empowered to grant judicial remand to the accused. When the petitioner was arrested by the police he was produced before the Judicial Magistrate for remand and the J. M. gave judicial remand upto 11/7/83. When this judicial remand was granted, the jail warrant was prepared and the petitioner was sent, to Central jail. Jail warrant is the authority given to the jail department intimating the date on which the accused is to be produced by them in court. This jail warrant can also be remand as production warrant. So the learned Magistrate while issuing this jail warrant directed the jail authorities to produce the accused petitioner in Court on 27/6/83. This jail warrant cannot be said to be an application for remand. On 11/7/83 when the petitioner was produced and brought before the Court it was for the police to submit an application for remand and request the Court to grant further remand in order to produce the challan. The request of the A. P. P. was no doubt to this effect that they want time to produce challan and this request was granted and 26/7/83 was fixed to submit challan. This request cannot be said to be request for remand. It was mere adjournment to submit the challan. I have perused the police diary and also perused the copy of the application submitted by A. P. P. on 11/7 /83 on which the learned Magistrate has passed this order granting adjournment to file the challan on 26/7/83. This request cannot be said to be request for remand. It was mere adjournment to submit the challan. I have perused the police diary and also perused the copy of the application submitted by A. P. P. on 11/7 /83 on which the learned Magistrate has passed this order granting adjournment to file the challan on 26/7/83. That application is not an application for remand. That is a pure and simple adjournment application. When the application was granted by the learned Magistrate and next date for submitting the challan was fixed as 26. 7. 83 he was bound to mention this date on the jail warrant. The jail warrant after the endorsement of the next date on which the accused is to be produced in court is sent back to the jail authorities so that they may be able to produce the petitioner on the next date fixed by the Court. So the order that the accused be produced on 26/7/83 is only intimation of the next date to the jail authorities. The order-sheet of the case clear that on the request of the A. P. P. time was granted to submit the challan and 26/7/83 was fixed by the court to produce the challan. This date was intimated by the court through the jail warrant to the jail authorities so, this is not an application for remand or this is nut an order on the application for remand. I have no hesitation to say that no application for further remand was submitted by the police before the learned Magistrate and as such there was no question of granting further remand and permitting the police to detain the petitioner in judicial custody. As there is no authorization, there is no written order by the learned Magistrate authorizing the detention of the petitioner in judicial custody beyond 11/7/83, the detention of the petitioner thereafter is not legal detention, without authority the petitioner is being detained in jail, there was no obstruction for the police to submit the application for remand before the Magistrate and the Magistrate could have passed the order authorizing the detention of the petitioner beyond 11/7/83. Under these circumstances, I am of the opinion that the detention of the petitioner beyond 11/7/83 is un-authorized detention, a detention without legal order by the Magistrate, hence this detention is the illegal detention and the accused petitioner is to be released on the very ground. There is no provision in law to detain the accused person, under these circumstances, without valid order of detention by a Magistrate. Hence it is ordered that on furnishing a surety of Rs 5,000/- and a personal bond of the same amount to the Satisfaction of the learned Sessions Judge, Ajmer the accused petitioner Mohan s/o Guilu Mal be released on bail, for appearance in trial court on each and every date of hearing and whenever needed. Bail granted.