T. SURYA RAO, J. ( 1 ) THE State through Public prosecutor seeks to assail the order dated 27-2-2001 passed by the learned VI Metropolitan magistrate, Vijayawada, in Crime No. 19 of 2001 of Nunna Rural Police Station. ( 2 ) RESPONDENTS 1 to 6 herein are accused, in Crime No. 19 of 2001, of the alleged offences punishable under section 302 read with Section 34 of the indian Penal Code. On 27-2-2001 a memo for extension of remand was filed by the assistant Sub-Inspector of Police on the premise that the investigation had not yet been completed and the Chemical examiner s report was yet to be received. The learned Magistrate did not accept the extension of memo on the sole premise that the Assistant Sub-Inspector who filed the memo was not the Investigating Officer and the Circle Inspector being Investigating officer in that case was not present. After having rejected that memo, the learned magistrate passed the impugned order directing the release of the accused on bail. ( 3 ) THE impugned order per se is not legally sustainable. Extension of remand is, no doubt, a judicial order and the Court has to exercise its function judiciously when the remand prisoner is produced before the Court seeking extension of remand. What is germane for consideration at that stage is to see the ground, inter alia, mentioned in the memo is sufficient to extend the remand or not. The absence of Investigating Officer is not at all a ground for refusing to extend the remand. Precisely, what has been done in this case by the learned Magistrate is the same, oblivious of the fact that the case against the accused is exclusively triable by a Court of Sessions and no bail can be granted by the Magistrate, since the offence alleged is punishable with death or imprisonment for life and at that stage there is every reason for him to believe that the accused has been guilty of an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life. It is not within his realm at that stage to examine the record and to hold otherwise as he lacks jurisdiction to do so. The impugned order is, therefore, illegal and cannot be justified. Hence, it is liable to be set aside. Consequently, the bail granted to the respondents shall have to be cancelled. It is not within his realm at that stage to examine the record and to hold otherwise as he lacks jurisdiction to do so. The impugned order is, therefore, illegal and cannot be justified. Hence, it is liable to be set aside. Consequently, the bail granted to the respondents shall have to be cancelled. Although the usual grounds for cancellation of a bail such as interference or attempt to interfere with the due course of administration of justice; or evasion or attempt to evade due course of justice; or abuse of the concession granted to the accused are not satisfied in this case in view of the fact that the impugned order is per se illegal and unjustified, having been passed in ignorance of law that constitutes a valid ground for cancellation of a bail. I am fortified in my above by a recent pronouncement of the Apex Court in Puran v. Rambilas, 2001 (2) ALD (Crl.) 30 (SC) = 2001 (3) Supreme 685 . ( 4 ) IN the result, the petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 27-2-2001 is hereby set aside and the bail granted to the accused is hereby cancelled. The respondents-accused shall surrender in consequence of cancellation of the bail.