A Magistrate has the power to remand an accused to custody during and until the conclusion of the trial under Section 209 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and such an order is not vitiated merely because there is no specific mention that the authority to keep the petitioner in detention is to enure only during and until conclusion of the sessions trial.

( 1 ) BY this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, petitioner Rajendra Gosain who is being detained in the District Jail, Banda ever since 11th Aug. , 1979, challenges the validity of his detention and prays for a writ of habeas corpus. According to him, his detention has been rendered invalid inasmuch as the persons responsible for the same have contravened the provisions of Article 22 of the Constitution and the Code of Criminal Procedure. He also claims that as at present there is no valid order from any competent Court authorising the superintendent of District Jail, Banda to keep him in custody, he is entitled to be set at liberty forthwith.

( 2 ) THE case of the respondents, on the other hand is that to begin with the petitioner was lodged in the District Jail Banda on 12th Aug. , 1979 in pursuance of a warrant of remand in criminal case No. 323 of 1978 under Section 396, I. P. C. Subsequently petitioners detention was also authorised under remand warrants issued by criminal Courts in connection with crime case No. 67 of 1979 under Section 395/397, I. P. C. Police Station Raipura, Crime case No. 256 of 1978 under Sections 395/397, 1. P. C. Police Station Karvi, and crime case No. 42 of 1979 under sections 395/397, I. P. C. Police Station Mau. Although the petitioner has been discharged in crime case No. 323 of 1978, he continues to be under detention in connection with remaining three cases. According to the respondents, the petitioner has been, in connection with crime case no. 42 of 1979 committed to Court of Session on 23rd May, 1980 (S. T. No. 162 of 1980) and his detention during the pendency of the Sessions trial is authorised under a warrant under section 290 (b), Cr. P. C. Issued by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Banda on 23rd May, 1980. It has also been authorised by subsequent endorsement made by the Sessions Court, on the back of the warrant. Likewise the petitioner has been committed to Court of Session in connection with crime case No. 67 of 1979 on 10th Sept. , 1980 (S. T. No. 360 of 1980) and his detention during the pendency of the trial has been authorised by the Chief Judicial Magistrate by means of a warrant under Section 209 (b) Cr. P. C. issued at the time of making of the order for petitioners commitment. So far crime case No. 256 of 1978 is concerned, the proceedings for petitioners commitment are going on and he is being duly remanded to jail custody and is being detained in that connection under remand orders made by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Banda from time to time. The superintendent of the District Jail, Banda has also produced the originals of the authority on the basis of which the petitioner is being detained by him in connection with the three cases for our perusal.

( 3 ) SRI D. S. Misra, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, who argued the case before us with great tenacity tried to make out that in none of the three cases, in connection with which the petitioner is at present being confined in the District Jail, Banda, is there a valid authority enabling the Jail authorities to detain the petitioner. He thus claimed that the petitioner is entitled to be released forthwith. Sri Malviya, learned Additional Government Advocate, appearing for the respondents, refuted the submission made by Sri Misra and contended that present detention of the petitioner in connection with the three cases is fully justified under the authority of criminal Courts, validly exercised. He further contended that if it is found that there exists a valid authority to detain the petitioner in the District Jail. Banda even in one of the three cases, it will not be possible for this Court to issue a writ of habeas corpus and to direct his release,

( 4 ) WE agree with the submission made by the learned Additional Government Advocate that if the petitioner is, at present being validly detained in connection with any of the three cases in which he is involved, it will not be possible