JUDGMENT

CHANDRACHUD, CJI. :—Heard counsel. Special leave granted.

2. The respondents, who are detained under the provisions of the "Prevention of blackmarketing and Maintenance of Essential Commodities Act, 1930 filed Habeas Corpus petitions in the High Court of Allahabad challenging the orders of detention passed against them. Those petitions were almost fully heard by a Division Bench on Oct, 19 and 22, 1981. 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 not likely to be available, perhaps as a Bench, for concluding the hearing of the writ petitions.

3. 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, Soon after the Division Bench rose, counsel for the respondents approached a learned single Judge after Court hours and applied for bail. It appears that the Deputy Government Advocate was available. 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 representation to the Advisory Board without considering them for itself.

4. The writ petitions were taken up for hearing by another Division Bench on November 3, 1981. They concluded the hearing on that date, reserved their judgment and allowed the respondents to continue on bail till November 10 which was fixed for judgment. The judgment is not yet delivered. 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 no case fixed before him."

5. 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".

6. We are unable to appreciate how the learned single Judge could release the respondents on bail when, in the first instance, the writ petitions filed by them were listed for hearing before a Division Bench. Secondly, and that involves a question of principle, we are unable to see for what special reason the learned judge thought it necessary to release the respondents on bail. The order passed by the learned judge does not show that there was any pressing or particular reason of a unique kind for which it was imperative to enlarge the respondents on bail. If persons held in detention are released on bail in the manner done by the learned Judge, the very object and purpose of detention will be totally frustrated. 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, But a detenu cannot be released on bail as a matter of common practice, on considerations generally applicable to cases of punitive detention. The learned single Judge. virtually took upon himself the decision of the writ petitions on merits. He found, evidently on an on-the-spot argument, that the State Government had erred in not considering the representations of the respondents before forwarding them to the Advisory Board and released the respondents on bail as their further continuance in detention was "prima facie" vitiated.

7. 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, (1966) 3 SCR 344. 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 R. 30 of the Defence of India Rules, 1962, 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 und