ORDER : K.N. Phaneendra, J. 1. Heard learned Counsel for petitioner. Learned High Court Government Pleader takes notice for respondent 1. 2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner files a memo for deletion of respondent No. 2 from the array of parties, as he is not a necessary party before this Court, as the order passed by the learned Trial Judge is not affecting the right of respondent No. 2 in any manner, memo is recorded and petitioner is permitted to delete respondent No. 2 from the array of parties. 3. It is seen from the records that this petitioner is an accused in Crime No. 363/2016 for the offence punishable under Sections 417, 420 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, Vide order dated 16.12.2016 the respondent-police have made a requisition to the Trial Judge on 16-12-2016 seeking for a body warrant (PT) against the accused-petitioner herein as the petitioner was in custody in connection with Crime No. 910/2016 of Madivala Police. Accordingly said order was issued by the Magistrate on 16.12.2016. On 17.12.2016 the Police Inspector of Hennur Police submitted the requisition seeking permission to produce the accused from judicial custody before the open Court to obtain the accused for police custody. It appears that the body warrant being executed by the jurisdictional police as the accused was in judicial custody. The learned Counsel for accused on 17-12-2016 appears to have made an application under Section 70(2) of Criminal Procedure Code, seeking indulgence of the Court to recall the body warrant issued against the accused-petitioner on the ground that the petitioner has already been ordered to be released in Crime No. 910/2016 and release order is also issued by the Jurisdictional Magistrate. It has to be culled out from the orders of the Trial Court itself the petitioner has made averment that on 16.12.2016 itself bail was granted in Crime No. 910/2016 and hence body warrant has to be recalled. As could be seen from the entire order sheet of the Trial Court and submission made by the police, the accused has not been arrested in connection with Crime No. 363/2016 but sought custody of the accused by way of body warrant in Crime No. 910/2016 pertaining to Madivala Police Station wherein accused was ordered to be released on bail. As could be seen from the entire order sheet of the Trial Court and submission made by the police, the accused has not been arrested in connection with Crime No. 363/2016 but sought custody of the accused by way of body warrant in Crime No. 910/2016 pertaining to Madivala Police Station wherein accused was ordered to be released on bail. The learned Magistrate has expressed his opinion that body warrant has already been executed and there is no necessity for recalling the said order. It cannot be said that said opinion is correct, as the body warrant remains in force till the accused is produced before the Court which issued the order. Therefore, appropriate order should have been passed by the Magistrate. It is not expressed by the Magistrate as to how the Court or police can detain the accused in custody, when the said person is ordered to be released, otherwise if accused is taken to custody and continued in custody which is not supported by any law for the time being in force, it amounts to illegal detention of the accused. Therefore, under the above circumstances Magistrate would have recalled the body warrant, if accused has been ordered to be released on bail in Crime No. 910/2016 so as to enable the police to arrest him in accordance with law after his release in pursuance of the bail granted to him in Crime No. 910/2016. Therefore in my opinion learned Magistrate has committed a serious error in not recalling the body warrant issued so to enable the police to take appropriate action. It is correctly submitted by learned Counsel for petitioner that the body warrant will be in force till the accused is produced before the Magistrate who issued the P.T. warrant for appropriate orders. Unless accused is arrested in connection with the present case, police or the Court have no jurisdiction to detain the accused in custody. Therefore, I am of the opinion the Magistrate has committed a serious error in this regard. The learned High Court Government Pleader has also submitted that police can even arrest the accused if he is required in connection with the present case, immediately after release of the said person in Crime No. 910/2016. In the above said circumstances, it is just and necessary to pass appropriate orders in this connection. Hence, the following : ORDER 1. Petition is allowed. 2. In the above said circumstances, it is just and necessary to pass appropriate orders in this connection. Hence, the following : ORDER 1. Petition is allowed. 2. The order dated 17.12.2016 passed by XI ACMM, Mayohall, Bengaluru in Crime No. 363/2016 is hereby quashed. The Magistrate is directed to recall the body warrant issued against the accused, so as to enable the accused to get himself released on bail in Crime No. 910/2016 with a liberty to the Investigating Agency in Crime No. 363/2016 to arrest the accused, if need he in accordance with law and procedure. 3. Accordingly petition is disposed of.