The learned Judges, however, released the writ petitions from their list since the Court had Diwali holidays from October 24 until November 2, 1981 and they were number likely to be available, perhaps as a Bench, for companycluding the hearing of the writ petitions.
He found, evidently on an on the spot argument, that the State Government had erred in number companysidering the representations of the respondents before forwarding them to the Advisory Board and released the respondents on bail as their further companytinuance in detention was prima facie vitiated.
Another Division Bench was going to rehear the petitions after ten days.
They companycluded the hearing on that date, reserved their judgment and allowed the respondents to companytinue on bail till November 10 which was fixed for judgment.
Soon after the Division Bench rose, companynsel for the respondents approached a learned Single Judge after Court hours and applied for bail.
In that case, the State of Bihar appealed to this Court against an order of interim bail passed by the Patna High Court in a Habeas Corpus petition which was filed by the respondent to challenge an order of detention issued under Rule 30 of the Defence of India Rules, 1962.
He was sent for and after hearing both the sides, the learned Judge granted bail to the respondents on the ground that the State Government had erred in forwarding the respondents representations to the Advisory Board without companysidering them for itself.
The learned Judges directed It may however be inquired as to how file was sent before the learned single Judge for bail when there was numbercase fixed before him.
Another Division Bench took up the Writ Petitions for hearing on October 23 but they adjourned the petitions until the reopening of the Court on November 3.
It was held by this Court that though the High Court has jurisdiction to grant bail in Habeas Corpus petitions filed against orders of detention passed under rule 30, the exercise of the said jurisdiction is inevitably circumscribed by the companysiderations which are special to such proceedings and which have relevance to the object which it intended to be served by orders of detention passed under the said Rule.
Grave illness or pressing and personal business may justify an order of release in detention cases for a short period suited to the exigencies of the particular occasion.
Appeals by special leave from the judgment and order dated the 23rd October, 1981 of the Allahabad High Court in CM.
It appears that the Deputy Government Advocate was available.
The judgment is number yet delivered.
932 933 of 1981.
Special leave granted.
The writ petitions were taken up for hearing by another Division Bench on November 3, 1981.
5909 W of 1981 in CW No.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No.
In passing the order of bail, the learned Judge has sought the support of a decision of a Constitution Bench of this Court in State of Bihar v. Rambalak Singh and Others.
Those petitions were almost fully heard by a Division Bench on October 19 and 22, 1981.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by CHANDRACHUD, C.J. Heard companynsel.
8918/81.
These Special Leave Petitions are directed against the order passed by the learned Single Judge on October 23, 1981, releasing the respondents on bail until the next date of hearing of the Habeas Corpus petitions.
Shaukat Hussain and Shakil Ahmed for the Respondent.
K. Bhatt for the Appellant.
The respondents, who are detained under the provisions of the Prevention of Blackmarketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980 filed Habeas Corpus petitions in the High Court of Allahabad challenging the orders of detention passed against them.
If on proof of certain companyditions or grounds it is open to the High Court to set aside the order of detention made under Rule 30 and direct the release of the detenu, then it cannot be held that in a proper case the High Court has numberjurisdiction to make an interim order giving the detenu the relief which the High Court would be entitled to give him at the end of the proceedings.
