The detention of an accused during and until the conclusion of a trial is not illegal if the commitment order is valid and the custody warrant authorizes the Superintendent, District Jail to keep the accused in his custody during and until the conclusion of the sessions trial. The period of detention is not indefinite as it commences from the date of commencement of the trial until its conclusion, and the accused can be admitted to bail subject to the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure relating to bail.

D. N. Jha, J. :- The applicant Sunder Lal moved an application in this court for being released on bail. The sole question on which the learned counsel pressed the application was that the detention of the applicant in jail after commitment was illegal as at the time of commitment the warrant issued for purposes of detention of the applicant was for an indefinite period and rendered the detention of the applicant illegal. The learned single Judge after considering the various authorities and the law interpreted in Rajendra Gosain v. Suptd., District Jail, Gonda (1981 Cri LJ 802) (All) was of the view that Rajendra Gosain's case required reconsideration. He then referred this case for decision by a Full Bench. The learned single Judge in order to avid delay and expedite the disposal of the bail application referred the whole case for consideration by the Bench.

2. The facts of the case briefly stated are that a report was lodged by one Sant Ram on 13-5-1981 at 6.45 A.M. against five persons including the applicant Sunder Lal. The Investigating Officer after completing the investigation submitted charge-sheet. The learned Judicial Magistrate by his order dated 8-3-1982 committed the applicant along with others to the Sessions Judge, Lucknow for trial under Ss.147/148/302/307 of the I.P.C. as these offences were exclusively triable by the Sessions Judge. It may be mentioned that the applicant was in jail at the time the case was committed to the Court of Session. He also mentioned that his order be notified to the Public Prosecutor, Lucknow. In the order it was also mentioned that the custody of Sunder Lal, who was in Jail, be handed over to the Superintendent, District Jail, during and till the disposal of the case before the Sessions Judge where he would be produced by the Superintendent, District Jail, as and when ordered.

3. In pursuance of this commitment order a custody warrant was issued. This warrant was summoned by us. The English translation of it reads as under:-

"Warrant - Intermediary custody under S.309, Cr. P.C., 1973.

Jailor, Lucknow.

Whereas Sunder Lal son of Nand Lal resident of Gendan Khera, hamlet of Amausi, Police Station Krishanagar, in Crime Case No. 376/81 has been charged under Ss.147/148/149/309/ 307 I.P.C. he is being sent to you under custody for trial by the Sessions Judge.

Therefore, by this order you are directed to keep the aforesaid accused Sunder Lal in your custody and produce him before the aforesaid court in accordance with the instructions given on the back of the warrant."

4. On the back of the warrant the following entry exists:-

Sl. No. of Remand Date of order Date of production Signature of the Magistrate.

8-3-82 Case Committed to Sessions.

4-A. It may be mentioned at the very outset that inadvertently typing errors had crept into this warrant which appears to be obvious by reason of fact that this warrant was issued on the basis of the commitment order dated 8-3-1982 which obviously was passed under S.209, Cr. P. C., and not S.309, Cr. P. C. Likewise the offences for which the applicant was to be tried were Ss.302/307 and, therefore mention of Section 309, I.P.C., was wrong.

5. The learned counsel for the applicant candidly conceded that the commitment order did not suffer from any illegality. The contention of the learned counsel for the applicant mainly is that the remand warrant could not be issued for an indefinite period which is not contemplated by law. It may be mentioned that the custody warrant clearly indicated that the custody of the applicant Sunder Lal was handed over to the Superintendent, District Jail "during and till the disposal of the case" before the Sessions Judge where the applicant was directed to be produced by the Superintendent, District Jail, as and when ordered.

6. The learned counsel for the applicant in order to substantiate his contention about the custody of the applicant being arbitrary and indefinite placed reliance on Ss.167 and 309, Cr. P. C. The r