STATE OF U.P. versus JAIRAM ETC.

Citation: [1982] 2 S.C.R. 24 · Decided: 01-12-1981 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: Y.V. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
24 
B 
·c 
D 
E 
'F 
·c 
STA1E OF U.P. 
v. 
JAIRAM ETC. 
December 1, 1981 
[Y.V, CHANDRACHUD, C.J., D.A. DESAI AND 
AMARENDRA NATH SEN, JJ.] 
fractice and Procedure-High Court-lf could release a detenu on bail 011 
consideraUons applicable to cases of punitive detention. 
After hearing the habeas corpus petitions of the respondents, who were 
detained under the provisions cir the Maintenance of Supplies of Essential 
C~mmodities Act, 1980 the Division Bench of the High Court released the writ 
petitions from their list since the Court was to have holidays for over ten days 
immediately thereafter. Another Division Bench, which took up the petitions 
for heating, also adjourned the petitions un'til the reopening of the Court after 
holidays. 
In .the mean time a single. Judge of the High Court, before whom the 
dete.nus .made an application for bail, allowed their petitions on the ground that 
th~ ,Government had erred in forwarding their representations to the advisory 
board without considering them for itself. 
On reopening of :the Court, a Division Bench heard the habeas corpus 
petitions. It however, allowed the detenus to be on bail till the judgment was 
"PfOnounce.d. 
_. 
In its petition for grant of special leave to appeal the State challenged the 
impugned order of the Single Judge releasing the detenus on bail "until the next 
·date of hearing of.the habeas corpus petitions''. 
Allowing ihe appeal 
HELD : J ,1 The single Judge erred in releasing the detenus on bail when their 
writ petitions were listed for hearing before a Division Bench. Neither was there 
any pressing or particular reason of a unique kind such as grave illness or press-
iµg and personal business justifying the order of release on bail for a short period. 
The detenus cannot be released on bail as a matter of common practice on 
considerations generally applicable to cases of punitive detention. [26 F-H] 
In the instant case the single Judge took up on himself the decision on 
H 
merits. 
• 
-
\ 
u .P. STATE v. JAIRAM (Chandrachud, C.J.) 
25 
Although the Courts would be anxious to protect the individual liberty of 
the citizen on justiciable grounds and within the limits of their jurisdiction, it 
would be unwise to ignore the object which the orders of detention are intended 
to serve. The reluctance of Courts to pass orders of bail in detention case~. is 
based on the fact that they are fully conscious of the difficulties-legal and 
constitutional-and of the other risks involved in making such orders. If an 
order of bail is made by the Court without a full trial of the issues involved 
merely on prima facie opinion formed by the High Court, such order would be 
open to challenge that it is the result of improper exercise of jurisdiction. It is 
essential to bear in mind the distinction between the existence of jurisdiction 
and its proper exercise. Improper exercise of jurisdiction in such matters must 
necessarily be avoided by the courts in dealing with applications of this 
character. [29 A-Fl 
A 
B 
State of Bihar v. Rambalak Singh and others, [1966) 3 SCR 344 applied. 
C 
2. There is no force in the argument of the detenus that by reason of the 
decision of the Division Bench, allowing the detenus to be on bail till the delivery 
of the judgment by it in their writ petitions, the special leave petition filed by the 
State had become infructuous because the primary order of bail was the one 
passed by the single Judge. The Division Bench has allowed that order to remain 
in operation only because the counsel for the State was unable to say whether the 
Advisory Board had recommended the confirmation of detention or not. The 
Division Bench postponed the delivery of the judgment for that reason and 
directed that the detenus would be allowed to continue on bail until further 
orders. (30 A-C] 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 932-
D 
933 of 1981. 
E 
Appeals by special leave from the judgment and order dated 
the 23rd October, 1981 of the Allahabad High Court in CM. Ap. 
No. 5909 (W) of 1981 in CW No. 8918/81. 
R.K. Bhatt for the Appellant. 
Shaukat Hussain and Shakil Ahmed for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
CHANDRACHUD, C.J. : Heard counsel. Special leave granted. 
The respondents, who are detained under the provisions of the 
Prevention of Blackmarketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essen-
tial Commodities Act, 1980 filed Habeas Corpus petitions in the High 
Court of Allahab

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.