Ajit Singh, J.

1. Heard Sri Daya Shankar Mishra, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Chandrakesh Mishra, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri Alok Ranjan Mishra, learned Counsel for Union of India and Sri Patanjali Mishra, learned AGA appearing on behalf of the State-respondents.

2. The present Habeas Corpus writ petition has been filed seeking the quashing of the detention order dated 08.07.2018. The relief as sought in the writ petition is herein under:

1& ;g fd lEekuuh; U;k;ky; cUnhizR;{khdj.k izd`fr ds ;kfpdkns'k vkns'k@funsZ'k ds ek/;e ls ;kph dks ekuuh; bl U;k;ky; ds le{k l'kjhj@lnsg mifLFkr@izLrqr djus ,oa mldh vk|ksikUr fu:f) ,oa vfHkj{kk dh oS/kkfudrk o laoS/kkfudrk dks ;qDr;qfDrd <ax ls iw.kZ:is.k lansg jfgr fl) ,oa izekf.kr djus gsrq mRrjoknhx.k lesr muds lg;ksxh@lgdehZ] v/khuLFk] vU;kU; lEcfU/kr] leLr vf/kdkjh@izkf/kdkjhx.k dks vknsf'kr@funsZf'kr djus dh egrh d`ik djsaA

2& ;g fd lEekuuh; U;k;ky; cUnhizR;{khdj.k izd`fr ds ;kfpdkns'k vkns'k@funsZ'k ds ek/;e ls ;kph ds fo:) jklqdk dh /kkjk 3¼2½ ds vUrxZr gLrk{kfjr iz'uxr fujks/kkns'k fnukafdr 08-07-2018 ¼layXud la[;k 1½ lesr vU;kU; leLr vk|ksikUr dk;Zokgh ,oa ;kph dh vk|ksikUr] orZeku Øekuqxr@yxkrkj fu:f) o vfHkj{kk dks vfof/kd] vlaoS/kkfud gksus ds vk/kkj ij mls vfoyEc@rRdky Lora=@eqDr o fjgk djus@NksM+us gsrq mRrjoknhx.k lesr muds lg;ksxh@lgdehZ] v/khuLFk] vU;kU;] leLr vf/kdkjhx.k@deZpkjhx.k dks vknsf'kr@funsZf'kr djus dh d`ik djsA

3& ;g fd lEekuuh; U;k;ky; cUnhizR;{khdj.k izd`fr ds ;kfpdkns'k vkns'k@funsZ'k ds ek/;e ls ;kph dh ukxfjd Lora=rk esa voS/kkfud fof/kd izfØ;k ds izfrdwy gLr{ksi djus ls mRrjoknhx.k lesr muds lg;ksxh@lgdehZ] v/khuLFk] vU;kU;] leLr vf/kdkjhx.k@deZpkjhx.k dks fu"ksf/kr@fuf"kf)r@euk djus dh d`ik djsA

4& ;g lEekuh; U;k;ky; dh n`f"V esa vU; dksbZ U;k;ksfpr ;FkklEHko ;kfpdkns'k vkns'k@funsZ'k] mi"ke@vuqrks"k ;kph ds i{k esa ikfjr o iznku djus dh egrh d`ik djsaA

5& ;g fd ;kph dks ;kfpdk dk lEiw.kZ O;;] izfrdj o fo'ks"k {kfriwfrZ ¼gtkZuk½ Hkh nsus@fnykus dh egrh d`ik djsaA

3. At the very outset, it may be appreciated that the present proceedings are culmination point of First Information Report dated 24.01.2018 with regard to an incident said to have taken place on 23.01.2018 as at the very outset, it may be noted that as far as the said FIR is concerned, copy of which has been annexed as Annexure no.7 to the writ petition, the present writ petitioner has not been named therein and the said FIR has been lodged against unknown persons. This was the starting point on which ultimately became the focal point for passing of the preventive detention order dated 08.07.2018 for the quashing of which the writ petition has been filed along with the other subsequent orders by means of which the period of detention has been extended.

4. The contention of learned Senior Advocate is to the effect that the detenue has not applied for bail in Case Crime No.68 of 2018. He was in judicial custody in Case Crime No.24 of 2018 and 154 of 2018. It has been contended that there is nothing on record to show that the detention order had some nexus with the objective sought to be achieved. The further contention is that the purpose of detention order in the present case is not preventive but in fact, it is punitive in nature.

5. The reliance by the senior advocate has been placed in the judgment of the Apex Court rendered in Criminal Appeal Nos. 826 of 1985, (Ashok Arora alias Ashoki Thekadar vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others) and 827 of 1985, (Ashok Kumar Sonkar vs. State of U.P. and others). The order dated November 29, 1985 is being quoted herein below:

“The solitary not which is the basis of the order of detention is also the subject matter of a criminal case in which bail has been granted to the appellants by the Additional Sessions Judge. The order of detention cannot be used to serve as the order for cancellation of bail. The appeals have therefore to be allowed. The appeals are accordingly allowed and the appellants are directed to be set at liberty forthw