The petitioners, who are 207 in number, have filed this application praying that a writ of habeas corpus be issued directing their release as they are in illegal custody.

2. The petitioners, it appears, were arrested on the 29th of October, 1977, and a case instituted, being Gardanibagh P.S. case No. 54 (10) 77, for offences under sections 141, 341 of the Indian Penal Code and section 7 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act. Their case is that although they were not produced before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Patna, on 29.10.77, an order for their remand was passed by the said Magistrate. Without going into what happened, subsequently, it may be sufficient to refer to the order dated 7.12. 1977. It may, however, be stated that this application was filed before that date and the ground of challenge was that there had been no legal order of remand on 29.10.77 or any date thereafter, On 9.12.77, however, the case was first taken up for hearing by another Bench and the records of the aforesaid case were called for by special messenger. Later, under the direction of the aforesaid Bench, that the case be placed before another Bench, this case has come before us. The records are now available and order dated 7.12.77 reads as follows :

“Accused persons total no. 203 in custody produced from Phulwari Sharif Jail. They were (?) remanded for 21.12. 77”.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the initial order dated 29.10.77 was itself illegal as the petitioners were not actually produced before the Chief Judicial Magistrate. It was further contended that thereafter there is no legal order of remand. In so far as the order dated 7.12.77 is concerned, it was contended that this order was not passed on 7.12. 77. The learned counsel contended that the use of word 'were' itself is indicative of the fact that the ordersheet was written after 7.12.77. It was further contended that even If it be accepted that the petitioners were produced on 7.12.77 the order of remand is illegal as it contravenes Proviso (a) to section 167 (2) Cr.P.C. on behalf of the respondents no counter affidavit has been filed, but the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State has contended that the petitioners cannot be said to be under illegal custody.

4. It is not necessary for us to consider the other submissions if we accept the last contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that there was no legal order of remand of 7.12.77. In that case, it will have to be held that the petitioners are not today under legal detention.

5. Proviso (a) to Section 167 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, so far as relevant is as follows :-

"The Magistrate may authorise detention of the accused person, otherwise than in custody of the police, beyond the period of fifteen days if he is satisfied that adequate grounds exist for doing so.."

It would thus be seen that it is necessary that before an order for detention beyond the period of 15 days, as referred to in section 167 (2) Cr.P.C. is passed the Magistrate should be satisfied that adequate grounds exist for doing so.

6. It goes without saying that the order of remand should not be passed mechanically or in a routine manner (see in re. Madhu Limaye, 1969 S.C. 1014-para 14). Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that since no reasons for directing remand of the petitioners have been given in the order dated 7.12.77, it has to be held that the Magistrate was not satisfied about the existence of adequate grounds. Without accepting the broad proposition canvassed by the learned counsel, it is clear that in the instant case the order of remand has been passed in a routine manner, without the Magistrate being satisfied that adequate grounds existed for an order of remand. The order of the Magistrate does not disclose that the Magistrate was so satisfied. There was no material before the Magistrate on the basis of which it could be said that he had applied his mind to the question whether adequate g