ORDER K. M. Agarwal, J.- 1. This is a bail petition under section 439 Cr. P. C. It is pressed on merits, as also on the ground that the applicant's arrest was illegal and the remand order was bad in law. 2. Apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No. 348/87 for an offence under section 302 I. P. C. registered in Police Station House, Morar, the applicant applied for anticipatory bail under section 438 Cr. P. C. before the Sessions Judge. During pendency of the application for anticipatory bail, he surrendered himself before the Sessions Judge on 26-6-1987 and applied in writing for decision of his bail application after taking him into custody. On the margin of the application filed on 26-6-1987, the Sessions Judge ordered, "The accused be taken into custody and sent to the concerning Mag." The applicant was, thereafter, produced before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, who was pleased to grant remand to the police till 29-6-1987. 3. The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant's surrender was only with a view to give the Sessions Judge jurisdiction to consider his application for anticipatory bail as an application for bail after arrest. He could not have, therefore, been remanded to police custody before rejection of his bail application. His contention was that there was no provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure for remanding an accused person either to the custody of the police or to the custody of the Magistrate without taking cognizance of the offence. The Sessions Judge did not apply his mind .in the present case as to what offence was committed by the applicant, nor did he see the police papers. Accordingly the applicant could not have been sent to the custody of the Magistrate or to the police custody and, therefore, the applicant's arrest or police custody was without jurisdiction. He also submitted that the Magistrate was bound to give reasons under section 167 (3) Cr.P. C. for authorising detention of an accused in police custody. In the present case, no reasons were given by the Magistrate while granting remand to the police and, therefore, the remand order was bad in law. Reliance was placed in an unreported decision of this Court in Mansingh and others. v. The State of M. P., Misc Cr. In the present case, no reasons were given by the Magistrate while granting remand to the police and, therefore, the remand order was bad in law. Reliance was placed in an unreported decision of this Court in Mansingh and others. v. The State of M. P., Misc Cr. Case No 1576/86; Decided on 12-1-1987(Gwalior Bench) and in Niranjan Singh v. Prabhakar Rajaram Kharote, (1980) 2 SCC (Cri) 508 and Ramdeo Mahto v. State of Bihar, 1978 Cri L.J 1074. 4. I find no substance in the contentions. There is no provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure, enabling a person accused of a cognizable offence to surrender himself before the Court, but it has been the practice of the Courts to take such persons into custody, if they offer themselves to the custody of the Court. Once an accused offers himself to the custody of the Court, the Court acquires jurisdiction to send him to police custody. I find nothing in the decisions cited by the learned counsel to take a contrary view. 5. In Ramdeo Mahto (supra), the police had submitted final report under section 173 (2) Cr. P.C. The accused was not produced before the Court, even though he had surrendered and was kept in custody on many dates on which orders of remand were passed in his absence and only on the production of the custody warrant. In the present case, the facts are different. The applicant was before the Court and no final form was submitted by the police. The decision in Ramdeo Mahto's case (supra) has, therefore, no relevance. 6. On perusal of the remand order made by the Additional Judicial Magistrate on 26-6-87, I find that the remand was granted after perusing the case diary and after hearing the A.P.P. and the accused, who had surrendered himself before the Court on the very day. Under the circumstances, it cannot be said that the remand was blindly granted or no reasons were given for the remand. Even if the remand is held to be bad for want of or absence of adequate reasons in the remand order, the applicant cannot get bail on that ground, because the challan has been filed and cognizance of offence has been taken by the Court, subsequent to the remand order. 7. Even if the remand is held to be bad for want of or absence of adequate reasons in the remand order, the applicant cannot get bail on that ground, because the challan has been filed and cognizance of offence has been taken by the Court, subsequent to the remand order. 7. On merits, the learned counsel for the applicant submitted that there was no evidence against the applicant till the date of his surrender in Court on 266-1987 and, therefore, he is entitled to bail. 8. The murder was committed in the intervening night between 18/19.6.1987. The dead body was recovered in the morning of 19-6-87 on the basis of an information received by the police from one Ompalsingh Thakur. The dead body was later on identified to be that of one Om Prakash. The post mortem report reveals that the death was due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of ante mortem injuries caused by hard and blunt object. It also mentions existence of strangulation marks all around the neck of the deceased. The police statements of witnesses show that the applicant had dragged the deceased after tying his neck with a string and that co-accused Mansingh had stoned him to death. On these materials, the offence was registered against the applicant and one Mansingh and only thereafter the police wanted to arrest them and the applicant filed an application for anticipatory bail. It cannot, therefore, be said that there was no evidence or material with the police against the applicant till the date of his surrender. There is, thus, no case for grant of bail to the applicant and his application is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly it is hereby dismissed.