JUDGMENT 1. The application under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is filed by the petitioners herein, praying for an order of bail in connection with R.C. Case No. 21 of 2008 tinder sections 7 and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 read with section 120B of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Mr. Sekhar Basu, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioners drew attention to the documents annexed along with the application and submitted that initially after rejection of the application for anticipatory bail filed by the petitioners, petitioners herein appeared voluntarily before the learned Court below and the learned Court below by order dated 4.10.2008 granted interim bail to the petitioners which remained operative till 4.11.2008. 3. Learned Court according to order dated 4.10.2008 took into consideration that on and from 5.10.2008, the Court will remain closed due to the Puja vacation and re-open only on 27.10.2008 and recorded that in view of the peculiar situation and without touching the merit of the case, the learned Court below granted interim bail to the petitioners. 4. In the aforesaid order the learned Court reserved the right to send the petitioners from judicial custody to police custody. 5. By order dated 4.11.2008 learned Court below took into consideration the order of the Division Bench of this Court, while rejecting the application for anticipatory bail, that the custodial interrogation of the accused persons was very much required. 6. In spite of referring to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court that police custody cannot be granted after the expiry of 15 days. The learned Court below cancelled the interim bail and directed the petitioners to remain in police custody for the period from 4.11.2008 upto 12 noon on 10.11.2008. 7. Thereafter, on 10.11.2008 learned Court below again rejected the prayer for bail filed by the petitioners and further remanded to judicial custody till 24.11.2008. The learned Court below also directed that the Investigating Officer be authorised to call the accused for any day for the purpose of investigation, which may be more than once in a fortnight. 8. 7. Thereafter, on 10.11.2008 learned Court below again rejected the prayer for bail filed by the petitioners and further remanded to judicial custody till 24.11.2008. The learned Court below also directed that the Investigating Officer be authorised to call the accused for any day for the purpose of investigation, which may be more than once in a fortnight. 8. So far as the direction of police remand is concerned after canceling the bail of the petitioners by order dated 4.11.2008, it may be pointed out that the language of section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is absolutely clear that the Magistrate may authorise detention of the accused persons otherwise in custody of the police beyond the period of 15 days. Police remand can only be granted during the first 15 days and the same is decided by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Central Bureau of Investigation, Special Investigation Cell-I, New Delhi vs. Anupam J. Kulkarni, reported in 1992 Cr. LJ 2768. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that during the period of first 15 days, the Magistrate is empowered to authorise detention of the accused persons either in police custody or in judicial custody depending on the nature of the case. But after the expiry of first 15 days, there can only be judicial custody. 9. This position is further confirmed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Budh Singh vs. State of Punjab, reported in 2001 Cr. LJ 2942, where the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that direction for police remand for further period of 7 days after expiry of first 15 days period is invalid. 10. So far as the present case is concerned, these decisions were submitted before the learned Court below but the said Court after taking into consideration his own direction, as passed in the order dated 4.10.2008, brushed aside the decisions of the Supreme Court on the ground that the same is not applicable in. the fact situation of the case. 11. So far as the present case is concerned, these decisions were submitted before the learned Court below but the said Court after taking into consideration his own direction, as passed in the order dated 4.10.2008, brushed aside the decisions of the Supreme Court on the ground that the same is not applicable in. the fact situation of the case. 11. I am unable to concur of the view expressed by the learned Court below only on the ground that no Court by his own order is empowered to create a provision in the statute book and as such the direction passed by the learned Court below dated 4.10.2008 does not create a right to pass an order in violation of provision under section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the decision of the Supreme Court as referred to above. 12. Coming to the merit of the application, it is not disputed that the petitioners herein approached the IO for interrogation but the 10 responded to the petitioners by stating that as he was on leave and would be on official tour, it was not possible to examine the petitioners on the given dates. 13. The document shows that petitioners herein submitted to the Investigating Officer intimating their availability in Calcutta for the period from 20.10.2008 to 30.10.2008. There is nothing to show that thereafter Investigating Officer directed their appearance for any interrogation. It may also be pointed out that while canceling the interim bail of the petitioners, the learned Court below took into consideration that the Division Bench of this Court held that the custodial interrogation of the petitioners is required and for that reason, rejected the application for anticipatory bail. 14. It is further not clear to me if the learned Court below was of the view that the custodial interrogation of the petitioners is required as observed by the Division Bench of this Court then nothing prevented the learned Court below to reject the prayer for bail. Even though the petitioners appeared before the learned Court below on the last working day before the Puja vacation. When an accused is appearing voluntarily, it should not be the concern of the Court that in view of ensuing Puja holidays, the accused persons may be granted interim bail which may be cancelled at a subsequent stage. Even though the petitioners appeared before the learned Court below on the last working day before the Puja vacation. When an accused is appearing voluntarily, it should not be the concern of the Court that in view of ensuing Puja holidays, the accused persons may be granted interim bail which may be cancelled at a subsequent stage. Such reasoning in my view is not only devoid of any merit but was based on consideration, which has no legal basis. While entertaining an application for bail, the Court is required to consider the merit of the application and should not have been moved by extraneous consideration as was done by the learned Court below while passing the order dated 4.10.2008. It may further be pointed out that cancellation of bail was effected suo motu by the learned Court below again on extraneous consideration on the basis of order dated 4.10.2008. Such a course of action in my view has no legal sanctity. 15. It further appears that the learned Court below in his order dated 10.11.2008 permitted the 10 to take the accused persons separately from the jail custody only for the purpose of confronting with the statements. This was done according to learned Court below by following Jail Code. It may be pointed out that Jail Code is an administrative manual having no legal force. There is no such thing as jail custody as is recorded in the learned Court below. The petitioners were in judicial custody, that is, in the custody of the Court. Taking away of the accused persons for the purpose of interrogation from the judicial custody is not only unheard of but such order in my view defeats the very basis of law. 16. Such removal of the accused persons from judicial custody even to the custody of the 10 is not only unjustified, illegal but in all fairness of the matter should have been avoided by the learned Court below. 17. Coming to the merit of the application, I have gone through the grounds highlighted by the IO and in my view the grounds as highlighted by the IO does not justify further detention of the petitioners particularly after the period of police remand, which in my view was directed illegally, violating the provision of section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court, as referred to above. 18. 18. Under these circumstances, I am of the view that further detention of the petitioners would not be justified. Petitioners viz., Shashi Tulsiyan, Ravi Tulsiyan are directed to be released on bail of Rs. 10,000/- each with two sureties of Rs. 5,000/- each, one of whom shall be local subject to satisfaction by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Calcutta. If on bail, the petitioners shall attend the Investigating Officer once every 15 days until further order. 19. The application for bail is thus disposed of. Appeal disposed of.