ORDER : The petitioner who is an accused in Spl.C.No.69/2015 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, D.K., Mangaluru, has filed this petition challenging the order dated 8.12.2015 passed by the Principal Sessions Judge, D.K., Mangaluru. 2. In the writ petition the case number has been mentioned as S.C.No.69/2015 instead of Spl.C.No.69/2015. 3. By the impugned order, the learned Sessions Judge has remanded the petitioner to the judicial custody on 6.1.2016 till 7.1.2016. Thereafter, from time to time, the judicial custody has been extended. The application filed by the petitioner under section 439 of Cr.P.C., has been rejected. 4. Aggrieved by the order dated 8.12.2015 and subsequent proceedings, the petitioner has filed this petition. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner was on bail. Without any application by the State and without cancelling the bail, the petitioner has been sent to judicial custody which is illegal. Further he submitted that till today, no application has been filed by the State for cancellation of bail. Unless the bail is cancelled, it was not proper for the Sessions Court to remand the petitioner to judicial custody. It cannot be sustained in law. In support of his submission, he placed reliance on the decision of this Court reported in ILR 2008 Karnataka page 3438. 6. The learned Government Pleader submitted that the petitioner has violated bail condition by not appearing and therefore, the Trial Court has issued NBW and remanded the petitioner to judicial custody. Therefore, the impugned order does not call for interference. However, the learned Government Pleader does not dispute the fact that no application was filed by the prosecution for cancellation of bail. He also submitted that as per the order sheet, no application has been filed by the State for cancellation of bail. 7. I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. 8. It is relevant to note, the petitioner was on bail in Spl.C.No.69/2015 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, D.K., Mangaluru. The petitioner has filed exemption application from time to time. On 8.12.2015, the exemption application filed by the petitioner has been rejected and NBW has been issued. On 6.1.2016, the petitioner has been produced before the Court and he has been remanded to judicial custody till 7.1.2016. Thereafter, the judicial custody has been extended. The petitioner has filed exemption application from time to time. On 8.12.2015, the exemption application filed by the petitioner has been rejected and NBW has been issued. On 6.1.2016, the petitioner has been produced before the Court and he has been remanded to judicial custody till 7.1.2016. Thereafter, the judicial custody has been extended. The application filed by the petitioner for grant of fresh bail has been rejected. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner placing reliance on the decision of this Court reported in ILR 2008 Karnataka page 3438 submitted that detention of the petitioner is illegal. Paras 5, 6 and 7 of the judgment read as follows: “5. It is evident that the State has not made any application for cancellation of bail. However as a matter of routine in the objections statement, the State Public Prosecutor made allegations that the accused was not prompt in appearing before the court on hearing dates. Without an application under Sec. 439(2) Cr.P.C., by the State and proper opportunity for the accused to meet the case, it was not proper for the Sessions Court to have cancelled the bail and remand the accused to judicial custody. 6. The order in question appears to be mainly because of the confusion created by the counsel for the accused who has unnecessarily filed a bail application when the accused was already on bail. 7. The detention of the accused under the impugned order is illegal for the reasons stated above. It is observed that the practice of insisting on bail application in respect of the accused again after committal who are already on bail is unnecessary.” In the present case, without any application filed by the State for cancellation of bail and without cancelling the bail, the petitioner has been remanded to judicial custody. The bail granted on 30.5.2015 is not cancelled and it is still in force. Therefore, it was unnecessary to file one more bail application. As the bail granted on 30.5.2015 is still in force, the detention of the petitioner in judicial custody is not proper. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the Trial Court is directed to release the petitioner forthwith. However, the petitioner shall appear before the Court on all dates of hearing without fail and shall be bound by the terms and conditions of bail granted on 30.05.2015.