( 1 ) SRI B. Subhashan Reddy, the learned counsel for the petitioners, contends that when the petitioner-accused were granted anticipatory bail, the learned Magistrate cannot take them into custody at the time of committing them for trial to the Sessions Court.

( 2 ) THE facts leading to this petition may be mentioned as follows : The first respondent gave report to the S. H. O. of Rural Police station, Nirmal, making certain allegations against the petitioners. The Sub-Inspector registered a case as Crime no. 50/1981 under sections 447, 324, and 326 IPC. , against the petitioners. The Sub-Inspector also issued FIR and took up investigation. The petitioners apprehending that they would be arrested filed Cr. MP Nos. 586/1981 and 623/1981, in the Court of Sessions Judge for anticipatory bail. The learned Sessions Judge granted anticipatory bail under S. 438 Cr. P. C. The Sub-Inspector after completing the investigation referred the case as one of civil nature. Aggrieved with the said orders of the police referring the case as one of civil nature, the first respondent filed a private complaint in the Judicial it Class Magistrates Court, Nirmal, under sections 147, 447, 324, 326 and 307 I. P. C. and the same was taken on file as PRC. No. 4 of 1982. The learned Magistrate has recorded the sworn statement of the complainant and also the other witnesses in the case. The petitioners in their turn file Crl. MP. No. 1421 of 1982 in this Court (High Court) for quashing the proceedings in P. R. C. No. 4 of 1982. But the same was dismissed on 3-7-1982. By virtue of the orders passed by the learned Sessions Judge in Crl. MP. Nos. 586/1981 and 623/1981, the petitioners were enlarged on anticipatory bail and since then they have been on bail. Now the Magistrate is proceeding to commit the accused to the Sessions Court for trial under S. 209. Cr. P. C. The accused, therefore, apprehend that the Magistrate will remand them to custody. Hence they filed a petition Crl. MP No. 365 of 1982, before the Sessions Judge, under S. 482 Cr. P. C. for giving direction to the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate Nirmal, not to take the accused into custody at the time of committing them for trial to the Sessions Court. It was urged the learned Sessions Judge that S. 482 Cr. P. C. cannot be invoked but the application can be considered under S. 439 Cr. P. C. The learned Sessions Judge held that Sessions Court has no power to invoke the provisions of S. 482 Cr. P. C. The learned Sessions Judge, finally dismissed the petition on the ground that it is not desirable for him to interfere with the discretion of the Magistrate. The accused-petitioners, therefore filed this petition under S. 482 Cr. P. C.

( 3 ) SRI B. Subhashan Reddy, the learned counsel for the petitioners, contends that as the petitioners were already granted bail, the committing Magistrate has no jurisdiction to remand the accused to custody under S. 209 (b) Cr. P. C. while committing the petitioners to Court of Session for trial and if they are committed to custody under S. 209 (b) Cr. P. C. it would amount to cancellation of bail which was granted already to them. The learned Public Prosecutor, contends that the committing the accused to the Court of Session, the Magistrate has got the power under S. 209 (b) Cr. P. C. to remand the accused to custody during and until the conclusion of the trial.

( 4 ) THE question that requires consideration is whether the Magistrate is empowered to remand the accused to custody while committing the accused to the Court to Session for taking their trial even though the accused were already on bail ?

( 5 ) SINCE it is not a revision against the order of the Sessions Court, the correctness or illegality of the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge need not be examined. But this Court can dispose of the question from above in this petition only under S. 482 Cr. P. C.

( 6 ) FROM the admitted facts it is clear that the accused were granted anticip