Custody after committal remains valid without a fixed remand period where trial orders and bail law govern detention.

Custody after committal to the Court of Session was not rendered unlawful merely because the remand warrant omitted a definite period. The commitment order under Section 209 of the Code of Criminal Procedure authorised custody during and until conclusion of the sessions trial, subject to the Code on bail, and successive trial court orders fixing appearance dates regulated the detention. Sections 167 and 309 of the Code did not support the claim that an unstated period in the warrant made detention illegal, so the bail application was rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether the accused's detention in jail after committal to the Court of Session was illegal on the ground that the remand warrant did not specify a definite period.

Analysis: The commitment order under Section 209 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 authorised custody during and until the conclusion of the sessions trial, subject to the provisions of the Code relating to bail. The absence of a specific date in the warrant did not make the custody unlawful, because the period of detention was tied to the commencement and conclusion of the trial and was further regulated by the trial court's successive orders fixing dates of appearance. Sections 167 and 309 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 did not support a plea that detention became illegal merely because a period was not expressly written in the warrant.

Conclusion: The detention was not illegal and the bail application was liable to be rejected.

---