( 1 ) CENTURIES old, classic, constitutional, conceptual, and critical contest between; a personal liberty, a life of Democracy; "rule the State by the Normal", on one hand and "oh Liberty! What crimes are committed in thy name"; on the other, has again been, surfaced in this Referential consideration and adjudication, in this petition based on. Constitutional writ remedy under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India. PREFATORIAL PROFILE :

( 2 ) ALL human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. All men are endowed by their creator with certain "unalienable rights". Justice, liberty and Equality have been the pursuits of Man in civilized society. Preservation of human life is the most important right for an individual. Personal liberty has been claimed as a part of right to life and with the development of this concept. Courts have come to protect various aspects of personal liberty as part of protection of life. Art. 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human rights provides : "every one has right to life, liberty and security of person. " article 21 of the Indian Constitution provides :"no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law. "liberty is a dynamic concept, therefore, continual research is necessary to regularly assess the changing dimension of the right to personal liberty guaranteed under Art. 21 of the Constitution of India.

( 3 ) PREVENTIVE Detention is a serious encroachment on the liberty of a person. But at times, it is necessitated on account of larger public order and justice. Some enactments, still, on account of their nature, continue to have the provisions of Preventive Detention. No doubt, detention without trial is terribly obnoxious. However, larger societal interest furnishes justification. Preventive Detention should primarily be treated, also, as psychological deterrent in a fight against anti-social, anti-national, habitual and dangerous offenders and such other subversive activities and should not be taken or characterised as downfall of liberty. Preventive Detention is qualitatively different from punitive detention. Their designs and desideratums are different. We propose to discuss and highlight the jurisprudential aspect, the significance, the role and the legal status of both, preventive detention and punitive detention, little later hereinafter, in course of our discussions, in this referential judgment, since we deem it expedient to first advert to, projection of relevant factual scenario and material legal profile. FACTUAL PROJECTION :

( 4 ) THE gist of the constitution of this Larger Bench is an order under reference, of learned single Judge of this Court, dated 14-12-2000 (Coram : kundan Singh, J.) as in the course of hearing this petition, he found that divergent views are taken in three Division Bench cases and one Single Bench case. He, therefore, desired following questions to be considered and determined by the larger Bench :" (I) Which of the decisions taken by the Division Benches in the cases of nasimbanu M. Shaikh v. Commissioner of Police, reported in 1988 (2) GLH 475 or in the case of Zubedabibi Rasid Khan Pathan v. State of Gujarat, reported in 1995 (2) GLR 1134 and/or in the case of Unusbhai Hasanbhai v. District Magistrate in L. P. A. No. 1056 of 1999 decided on 15-9-1999 and/ or in the case of Sagar Shrikrishna Ahir v. Police Commissioner, Ahmedabad, is correct one? (2) Whether it is necessary for the detaining authority before resorting preventive detention to take steps for cancellation of bail under Sec. 437 (5) of the criminal Procedure Code, in the cases in which the detenu has, already, been granted bail? (3) Where the detaining authority has taken into consideration that the cancellation of bail under Sec. 437 (5) of Criminal Procedure Code would take long process and not resorting to take action for cancellation of bail under Sec. 437 (5) of Criminal Procedure Code in the registered c