J. K. MATHUR, J. This application for bail has been moved on behalf of Vinod who is alleged to have committed the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 324, I. P. C. 2. The case of the prosecution, briefly stated, is that on 11-3-1991 Ghan Shy am, R am Janam with their father Ram Achhaybar and sister Gudda were taking sister from their field at about 10 in the morning when Vinod and Pramod came there and asked them that they wanted. On Ram Achhaybar saying that they did not want anything, Vinod fired at Ram Janam and Prarnod at Ram Achhaybar. Both of them fell down. Ghan Shyam and Gudda followed the accused and held them. Both of them beat the witnesses and ran away. Ram Janam was still alive. We was taken to the hospital where the first aid was given. While he was being taken to Faizabad, he died. Ram Achhaybar died on the spot. 3. Number of grounds were taken and contentions raised on behalf of applicant relating to the probability of the applicant having committed the crime. 4. It is not necessary to go into the details of any of those contentions. One of the points raised on behalf of applicant was that the present applicant had been kept in custody without any valid order of remand. 5. To show this the applicant has filed the orders passed in this case as Annexures-6 and 9 to the supplementary affidavit. 6. During investigation the applicant was duly remanded to the judicial custody. However, on 7-9-1991 the order of committal was passed. There is another order saying that the applicants have to be sent to the judicial cus tody for the period of trial in the sessions. Though specific order, however, was not passed remanding them to such custody on such terms. Subsequently they were not remanded to custody by the Sessions Judge on any of the dates. 7. It was urged on behalf of applicant firstly that even if there was an order of remand under Section 209, Cr. P. C. an order has to be passed by the Sessions Judge remanding the accused to custody under Section 209, Cr. P. C. It was also urged that even an order under Section 209 was not there. 8. 7. It was urged on behalf of applicant firstly that even if there was an order of remand under Section 209, Cr. P. C. an order has to be passed by the Sessions Judge remanding the accused to custody under Section 209, Cr. P. C. It was also urged that even an order under Section 209 was not there. 8. As discussed above the Magistrate merely mentioned that the accused were to be remanded: "abhiyukt Vinod Kumar Va Pramod Kumar Abhiyuktgan Is Mamie Me Zila Karagar Me Nyayik Abhirakchha Me Niruddha Hai, Unhe Mamie Ke Vicharan Ke Dauran Evam Aakhir Thak Nyayik Abhi- rakchhan Me Sandarbh Purta Preshit Kiya Jana Hai. " This order merely indicates that the Magistrate wanted to pass the order but such an order was never in fact passed. 9. In view of fact that applicants were confined in jail on the date on which they moved for bail without any valid order of remand, the-applicant is entitled to be released. The bail application is, therefore, allowed. The applicant Vinod will be released on his furnishing security to the satisfaction of the Magistrate concerned. Application allowed. .