G. K. SHARMA, J.

( 1 ) THIS is an application under section 439, Criminal Procedure Code filed by the accused petitioner Mohan for releasing him in F. I. R. No. 116/1983. It has been argued that the detention of the petitioner in jail after 11. 7. 1983 is without authority. No remand has been obtained to keep in jail beyond 11. 7. 1983. As such detention being illegal the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail.

( 2 ) TO understand the facts I may mention that a case under section 307 Indian Penal Code was registered at Police Station Ganj, Ajmer and the accused petitioner was arrested by the police prior to 27/6/1983 and was produced before the Judge. Magistrate on 27/6/1983 for remand. The learned Magistrate remanded the accused to judicial custody upto 11/7/1983 with the direction to produce him in court on that date. On 11/7/1983 the petitioner was produced before the learned judicial Magistrate No. 1, Ajmer. It is alleged that on that the learned Magistrate did not pass any order in the order-sheet authorizing further detention of the accused. On the jail warrant It has been mentioned that the accused be produced on 26/7/1983. The petitioner moved an application before the learned Sessions Judge, Ajmer for grant of bail but that application was rejected vide order dated 16/7/1983.

( 3 ) THE only argument advanced on behalf of the petitioner is that the detention of the petitioner after 11/7/1983 is without authority and as such his detention is illegal. It is prayed that the accused be released on bail.

( 4 ) LEARNED counsel on behalf of the complainant has argued that in the order-sheet dated 11/7/83, it has been mentioned that on the request of A. P. P time was granted to file the challen on 26/7/1983. It was also argued that on the jail warrant the learned Magistrate has passed the order to the effect that accused has been produced in judicial custody. He be produced on 26/7/1983 when the challan will be produced. Thus looking to the order sheet as well as the order on the jail warrant, the intention of the court is very clear that the remand has been granted to thw accused for judicial custody up to 6/7/1963.

( 5 ) I have considered the argument. The petitioner was arrested and Section 167 (2) Cr. P. C. is with regard to grant of keeping the accused in further detention by the Magistrate. The provision of this section is very clear and when an accused is forwarded under this Section the Magistrate will authorize the detention of the accused in such custody as the Magistrate thinks fit for a term not exceeding 15 days in a whole. It means under this Section the accused can be remanded to police custody for a term not exceeding 15 days in whole. Thereafter if the police further requests for remand the Magistrate is empowered to grant judicial remand to the accused. When the petitioner was arrested by the police he was produced before the Judicial Magistrate for remand and the J. M. gave judicial remand upto 11/7/83. When this judicial remand was granted, the jail warrant was prepared and the petitioner was sent, to Central jail. Jail warrant is the authority given to the jail department intimating the date on which the accused is to be produced by them in court. This jail warrant can also be remand as production warrant. So the learned Magistrate while issuing this jail warrant directed the jail authorities to produce the accused petitioner in Court on 27/6/83. This jail warrant cannot be said to be an application for remand. On 11/7/83 when the petitioner was produced and brought before the Court it was for the police to submit an application for remand and request the Court to grant further remand in order to produce the challan. The request of the A. P. P. was no doubt to this effect that they want time to produce challan and this request was granted and 26/7/83 was fixed to submit challan. This request cannot be said to be request for remand. It was mere adjournment to submit the challan. I have p