A Magistrate has the jurisdiction to order the custody of an accused committed for trial, even if the accused was previously released on bail by the Sessions Judge, as the Magistrate's power to commit the accused to custody under Section 220 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is subject to the provisions of the Code regarding the taking of bail, including Section 497, but Section 497(5), which allows a High Court or Sessions Court to cancel bail granted by itself, does not apply to bail granted by a Magistrate.

Jamuar, J.

1. The question for decision raised in this appln. is whether there is jurisdiction in a Mag. when committing an accused for trial to a Ct. of Session, to order him to be taken into custody, when previously there had been an order passed by the Ses. J. for the release of the accused on bail.

2. The three petnrs. along with three others--have been committed to the Ct. of Session to take-their trial on a charge of murder & abetment of murder. During the commitment stage, an appln. had been moved to the Sections J. for the release of the petnrs. on bail & an order was passed accordingly. Subsequently, when committing the accused to the Ct. of Session, the committing Mag. refused to allow them to remain on bail. Against this last order the six accused moved the Ses. J. who ordered for the release of three of them on bail but rejected the appln. of the three petnrs. before us. Before us, accordingly, it is now contended that the order of the committing Mag. refusing the prayer of the petnrs. for bail was-without jurisdiction since the order of the Ses. J. releasing them on bail still remained in force, & that, therefore, the petnrs. should be ordered to be released from custody forthwith.

3. Mr. Sanyal, who has appeared on behalf of the petnrs. has placed reliance upon some cases in support of his contention. He has cited Ahmad V/s. The Grown, A.I.R. (97) 1950 Lab. 185 : (Pak. T. R. (1950) Lab. 720), The Crown Prosecutor v. N. S. Krishnan, A. I. R. (as) 1945 Mad. 250 : (47 Cr. L. T. 106) & Seoti V. Rex, A. I. E. (35) 1948 ALL. 566 : (49 Cr. L. J. 521 F. B.).

4. The only case which supports .the contention of Mr. Sanyal is Seoti V/s. Rex, A. I. B. (35) 1948 ALL. 566 : (49 Cr. L. J. 521 F. B.). The question now to be decided did not specifically arise in the other cases. In Ahmad V/s. The Crown, A. I. It. (37) 1950 Lah. 195 : (Pak. L. R. (1950) Lah. 720), the facts were that certain accused were being prosecuted on a charge of murder & the enquiry was pending before the committing Mag. On an appln. to the Ses. J. they were released on bail. At that time the evidence of the prosecution had not yet begun to be recorded. When some witnesses were examined implicating the accused, an appln. was made on behalf of the Grown to the Ses. J. that the bail should be cancelled on the ground that a large number of witnesses had deposed against them & that the accused were trying to suborn the witnesses. The Ses. J. accepted the petn. & cancelled the bail bonds & directed that the accused be taken into custody. Hence the question for decision in that case was whether the Ses. J. was empowered to cancel the bail granted by himself. This is not the issue in this case before us.

5. In the Grown Prosecutor V/s. N. S. Krishnan, A. I. B. (32) 1945 Mad, 250 : (47 Cr. L. J. 166), which is a Section B. decision, also the question was not the same as in the present case. The facts were that the accused who were arrested by the police on certain charges were refused bail by the Presidency Mag. but were enlarged on bail by the H. C. Under Sec. 498, Cr. P. C., pending the investigation of the case. Subsequently, an appln. was made by the Crown to the II. C. for cancellation of the bail Under Sec. 497 (5) of the Code on certain grounds. The question for decision was whether the H. C. had the jurisdiction to cancel the bail & it was held that although Sec. 497 (5) of the Code could have no appln. to the case of an accused portion who had boon released on bail Under Sec. 498 of the Code, the Gt. had adequate jurisdiction Under Section 56 A of the Code to continue or discontinue an order granting bail in the circumstances which enured for a limited period only.

6. As I have already stated, it is the Case of Seoti V/s. Rex, A. I. R. it. (35) 1948 ALL. 366 : (49 Cr. L. J. 521 F. B.) which is in support of the proposition contended for on behalf of the petnrs. in the case before us. In that case proceedings were continuing against the accused befor