{"id":98415,"date":"1966-01-17T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1966-01-16T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-bihar-vs-rambalak-singh-and-others-on-17-january-1966"},"modified":"2016-05-06T04:41:05","modified_gmt":"2016-05-05T23:11:05","slug":"the-state-of-bihar-vs-rambalak-singh-and-others-on-17-january-1966","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-bihar-vs-rambalak-singh-and-others-on-17-january-1966","title":{"rendered":"The State Of Bihar vs Rambalak Singh And Others on 17 January, 1966"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
The State Of Bihar vs Rambalak Singh And Others on 17 January, 1966<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1966 AIR 1441, \t\t 1966 SCR (3) 314<\/div>\n
Author: P Gajendragadkar<\/div>\n
Bench: Gajendragadkar, P.B. (Cj), Shah, J.C., Sikri, S.M., Ramaswami, V., Satyanarayanaraju, P.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nTHE STATE OF BIHAR\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nRAMBALAK SINGH AND OTHERS\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n17\/01\/1966\n\nBENCH:\nGAJENDRAGADKAR, P.B. (CJ)\nBENCH:\nGAJENDRAGADKAR, P.B. (CJ)\nSHAH, J.C.\nSIKRI, S.M.\nRAMASWAMI, V.\nSATYANARAYANARAJU, P.\n\nCITATION:\n 1966 AIR 1441\t\t  1966 SCR  (3) 314\n CITATOR INFO :\n D\t    1982 SC 942\t (7)\n R\t    1987 SC1383\t (9)\n\n\nACT:\nConstitution of India, Art. 226,-Habeas Corpus\tproceedings-\nwhether\t High Court has jurisdiction to grant  interim\tbail\nwhere  detention  is under R. 30, Defence  of  India  Rules,\n1962.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nThe respondent, who was ordered to be detained under Rule 30\nof the Defence of India Rules, 1962, filed a petition in the\nHigh  Court  for a writ of habeas corpus.  The\tHigh  Court-\npassed an order releasing the respondent on interim bail.\nIn  the appeal to this Court against the said order, it\t was\ncontended, inter alia, on behalf of the appellant state that\nalthough ordinarily the High Court may have jurisdiction  to\ngrant  interim bail in habeas corpus proceedings,  this\t was\nnot so in cases where a detenu is detained under R.30;\nthe policy underlying the enactment of the Defence of  India\nAct and the Rules and the object intended to be achieved  by\nthe  detention\twhich  is authorised under  R.\t30,  clearly\nindicated  that\t there were other  valid  considerations  of\nparamount importance which distinguished the detention\tmade\nunder  R.  30  and that altered the character  of  the\tpro-\nceedings initiated by or on behalf of the detenu under\tArt.\n226; that in such proceedings the Court could not ignore the\nfact  that the detention is purported to have been  made  in\norder  to safeguard the Defence of India and Civil  Defence,\nPublic Safety, etc.; that the very object of making an order\nof  detention  against\ta citizen is to put an\tend  to\t his\nprejudicial activities which are likely to affect one or the\nother of the matters of grave public importance specified by\nR. 30 and it would therefore be illogical to hold that\teven\nbefore\tthe Court comes to any decision as to the merits  of\nthe  grounds on which the order of detention is\t challenged,\nit  would be open to the Court to pass an interim  order  of\nbail;  that  furthermore any order of bail  passed  in\tsuch\nproceedings would not be interim but would be final and this\nalso distinguished cases of this character from other habeas\ncorpus proceedings.\nHELD  : In dealing with habeas corpus petitions\t under\tArt.\n226  where  orders  of\tdetention passed  under\t R.  30\t are\nchallenged  the High Court has jurisdiction to\tgrant  bail,\nbut  the  exercise of the said\tjurisdiction  is  inevitably\ncircumscribed  by the considerations which -are\t special  to\nsuch  proceedings  and which have relevance  to\t the  object\nwhich  is  intended  to be served  by  orders  of  detention\nproperly and validly passed under the\nSpecial\t Reference No. 1 of 1964 [1965] 1 S.C.R. 413;  State\nof Orissa V.   Madan Gopal Rungta and others<\/a>, [1952]  S.C.R.\n28; referred to.\nIf  on proof of certain conditions or grounds it is open  to\nthe  High  Court to set aside the order\t of  detention\tmade\nunder  R. 30 and direct the release of the detenu,  then  it\ncannot\tbe held that in a proper case the High Court has  no\njurisdiction to make an interim order giving the detenu\t the\nrelief which the High Court would be entitled to give him at\nthe end of the proceedings. [348 C]\n\t\t\t    345\nIt  cannot  also be said that the jurisdiction of  the\tHigh\nCourt  to  pass interim auxiliary orders under Art.  226  is\ntaken  away by necessary implication when the High Court  is\ndealing\t with habeas corpus petitions in relation to  orders\nof detention passed under R. 30. [348 G]\nIt is only when the High Court is satisfied that prima facie\nthere  is  something  patently\tillegal\t in  the  order\t  of\ndetention  that\t an  order for bail would  be  passed.\t The\njurisdiction of the High Court to pass an interim order does\nnot depend upon the nature of the order but its authority to\ngive  interim  relief to a party which is auxiliary  to\t the\nmain  relief  to  which the party would be  entitled  if  he\nsucceeds in- his petition. [349 E]\nThe  jurisdiction of the High Court to grant relief  to\t the\ndetenu\tin such proceedings is very narrow and very  limited\nand  that being so, if the Court takes the view\t that  prima\nfacie  the  allegations\t in a petition\tdisclose  a  serious\ndefect\tin  the order of detention which would\tjustify\t the\nrelease\t of the detenu, the wiser and the more sensible\t and\nreasonable  course to adopt would invariably be to  expedite\nthe  hearing of the writ petition and deal with\t the  merits\nwithout any delay. [350 A-B]\nIf an order of bail is made by the High Court without a full\ntrial  of the issues involved merely on prima facie  opinion\nformed by it, the said order would be open to the  challenge\nthat is the result of improper exercise of jurisdiction.  It\nis  essential  to bear in mind the distinction\tbetween\t the\nexistence of jurisdiction and its proper exercise.  Improper\nexercise of jurisdiction in such matters must necessarily be\navoided\t by the courts in dealing with applications of\tthis\ncharacter. [351 C]\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 200 of
\n1965.\n<\/p>\n
Appeal\tby special leave from the judgment and\torder  dated
\nNovember 24, 1965 of the Patna High Court in Criminal W.J.C.
\nNo. 126\t  of 1965.\n<\/p>\n
Lal  Narain Sinha, Advocate-General, Bihar, Bajarang  Sahai,
\nand  S. P. Varma, for the appellant.\n<\/p>\n
D.   Goburdhan and G. N. Sinha, for respondent No. 1.
\nC.   K. Daphtary, Attorney-General, and B. R. G. K. Achar
\nfor intervener.\n<\/p>\n
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\nGajendragadkar,\t C.  J.\t This appeal  by  special  leave  is
\ndirected  against the order passed by the Patna\t High  Court
\nordering that the detenu Rambalak Singh be released on\tbail
\nof  Rs.\t 500  with  two sureties of  Rs.  250  each  to\t the
\nsatisfaction of the Registrar of the High Court.  The  order
\nfurther\t mentions that Mr. Girish Nandan Sinha who  appeared
\nfor  the detenu had given an undertaking to the\t Court\tthat
\nduring\tthe pendency of the proceedings when the  petitioner
\nis  on\tbail,  the  petitioner\twill  not  indulge  in\t any
\nprejudicial activity or commit any prejudicial act.  Mr. Lal
\nNarain\tSinha, the Advocate-General of Bihar, has  urged  on
\nbehalf of the appellant, the State of Bihar, that the  order
\nunder appeal is without
\n346<\/span>
\njurisdiction,  and that raises an important question of\t law
\nas  to whether while entertaining a habeas  corpus  petition
\nunder  Art.  226 of the Constitution filed on  behalf  of  a
\ndetenu who has been detained under Rule 30 of the Defence of
\nIndia Rules (hereinafter called the “Rules”), the High Court
\nhas  jurisdiction to release the detenu on bail pending\t the
\nfinal disposal of the said habeas corpus petition.
\nThe  learned Advocate-General stated at the outset that\t the
\nappellant  was\tnot keen on obtaining the  reversal  of\t the
\norder  of  bail\t which is under appeal; he  urged  that\t the
\nappellant wanted the point of law to be decided, because  it
\nis necessary that the true rue legal position in this matter
\nshould\tnot be in doubt.  That is why we do not\t propose  to
\ndeal with the facts leading to the habeas corpus petition on
\nbehalf\t of  Rambalak  Singh  and  will\t not  consider\t the
\npropriety, or the reasonableness of the order under  appeal.
\nIt  is true, as the learned Advocate-General contends,\tthat
\none  rarely  comes across a case where the  High  Court\t has
\npurported  to exercise its jurisdiction under Art.  226\t and
\nreleased  a detenu on bail where the order of detention\t has
\nbeen  passed under R. 30 of the Rules; but that\t by  itself,
\ncan  afford no assistance in dealing] with the\tquestion  of
\njurisdiction raised by the present appeal.
\nThe learned Advoate-General has fairly invited our attention
\nto  the observations recently made by this Court in  Special
\nReference  No.\t1 of 1964 (1), which are  relevant  for\t the
\npurpose\t of dealing with the present appeal.  In that  case,
\nthe  Legislative Assembly of the State of Uttar Pradesh\t had
\ncommitted  Keshav Singh, who was not one of its members,  to
\nprison\tfor its contempt.  Keshav Singh had then  moved\t the
\nAllahabad  High Court, Lucknow Bench, under Art. 226 of\t the
\nConstitution  and s. 491 of the Code of Criminal  Procedure,
\nchallenging  his  committal  as\t being\tin  breach  of\t his
\nfundamental  rights.  He had also prayed for  interim  bail.
\nThe learned Judges who entertained his petition admitted him
\nto  bail  and  one of the points which\tarose  for  decision
\nbefore\tthis Court in the Special Reference was whether\t the
\norder  passed  by the High Court admitting Keshav  Singh  to
\nbail was without jurisdiction.\n<\/p>\n
Mr.  Seervai,  who had appeared for the U.P.  Assembly,\t had
\nstrenuously  contended\tthat the order passed  by  the\tHigh
\nCourt\tadmitting   Keshav  Singh  to\tbail   was   without
\njurisdiction,  and  in\tsupport of his\tcontention,  he\t had
\nrelied\tupon the English practice which seems  to  recognise
\nthat  in  regard  to  habeas  corpus  proceedings  commenced
\nagainst orders of commitment passed by the House of  Commons
\non  the\t ground\t of its contempt, bail\tis  not\t granted  by
\ncourts.\t This argument, however, was rejected by this Court,
\nbecause\t this Court took the view that “if Art. 226  confers
\njurisdiction  on the Court to deal with the validity of\t the
\norder of commit-\n<\/p>\n
(1)  [1965] 1 S.C.R. 413.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t    347<\/span><\/p>\n
ment  even  though the commitment has been  ordered  by\t the
\nHouse, how can it be said that the Court has no jurisdiction
\nto  make  an interim order in such proceedings?”  (p.  498).
\nReference was also made to an earlier decision of this Court
\nin the State of Orissa v. Madan Gopal Rungta and  Others<\/a>(1),
\nwhere  it  was ruled that an interim relief can\t be  granted
\nonly  in aid of, and as auxiliary to, the main relief  which
\nmay be available to the party on final determination of\t his
\nrights in a suit or proceeding.\t It is clear that this\tview
\nproceeded   on\tthe  well  recognised  principle   that\t  if
\njurisdiction  is  conferred by a statute upon a\t Court,\t the
\nconferment  of\tjurisdiction implies the conferment  of\t the
\npower  of doing all such acts, ,or employing such means,  as
\nare essentially necessary to its execution(2).\tHaving\tthus
\nrejected  the contention raised by Mr. Seervai,\t this  Court
\ntook  the precaution of adding that it was not concerned  to
\nenquire whether the order admitting Keshav Singh to bail was
\nproper\tand reasonable or not; all that this court was\tthen
\nconcerned to consider was whether the said order was without
\njurisdiction,  and  on this point the opinion  expressed  by
\nthis  Court was that in passing the order of  interim  bail,
\nthe  High  Court  cannot  be  said  to\thave  exceeded\t its
\njurisdiction.\n<\/p>\n
The  learned Advocate-General does not dispute the  correct-
\nness  of these observations.  He, however, argues that\tthis
\nprinciple  cannot  be  invoked in cases where  a  detenu  is
\ndetained  under R. 30 of the Rules.  The  policy  underlying
\nthe  enactment of the Defence ,of India Act and\t the  Rules,
\nand  the  object intended to be achieved  by  the  detention
\nwhich  is  authorised under R. 30,  clearly  indicate,\tthat
\nthere are other valid considerations of paramount importance
\nwhich  distinguish the detention made under R. 30  and\tthat
\nalters\tthe character of the proceedings initiated by or  on
\nbehalf\tof the detenu under Art. 226.  It is  conceded\tthat
\neven in regard to orders of detention passed under R. 30, it
\nwould be competent to the High Court to order release of the
\ndetenu\tif  the High Court is satisfied\t that  the  impugned
\norder  has been passed mala fide.  There is also  -no  doubt
\nthat  the order of detention can be set aside if it  appears
\nto the High Court that on the face of it, it is Invalid,  as
\nfor  instance,\twhen it appears to the High Court  that\t the
\nface  of  the  order shows that it has\tbeen  passed  by  an
\nauthority  not\tempowered to pass it.  But the\targument  is
\nthat  in  dealing with the question as to whether  the\tHigh
\nCourt  can grant interim bail to a detenu in  habeas  corpus
\nproceedings  commenced\ton his behalf under  Art.  226,\t the
\nCourt cannot ignore the fact that the detention purports  to
\nhave  been made in order to safeguard the defence  of  India
\nand  civil  defence, public safety,  maintenance  of  public
\norder, India’s relations with foreign powers, maintenance of
\npeaceful conditions in any part of India, efficient  conduct
\nof military operations or the maintenance of
\n(1)  [1952] S.C.R. 28.\n<\/p>\n
(2)  Maxwell on Interpretation of Statutes 11th ed., p. 350
\n348<\/span>
\nsupplies   and\tservices  essential  to\t the  life  of\t the
\ncommunity.  The very object of making an order of  detention
\nagainst\t a  citizen  is to put an  end\tto  his\t prejudicial
\nactivities  which are likely to affect one or the  other  of
\nthe  matters of grave public importance specified by R.\t 30,
\nand  so, it would be illogical to hold that even before\t the
\nCourt comes to any decision as to the merits of the  grounds
\non  which the order of detention is challenged, it would  be
\nopen  to  the Court to pass an interim order  of  bail;\t and
\nthat,  it is urged, distinguishes habeas corpus\t proceedings
\nin relation to orders of detention passed under R. 30 of the
\nRules.\n<\/p>\n
We  are\t not  impressed by this argument.  If  on  proof  of
\ncertain\t conditions or grounds it is open to the High  Court
\nto set aside the order of detention made under R. 30 of\t the
\nRules,\tand direct the release of the detenu, we do not\t see
\nhow it would be possible to hold that in a proper case,\t the
\nHigh  Court  has no jurisdiction to make  an  interim  order
\ngiving\tthe detenu the relief which the High Court would  be
\nentitled  to  give him at the end of the  proceedings.\t The
\ngeneral\t principle on which the observations of\t this  Court
\nwere  based in the Special Reference would apply as much  to
\nthe  habeas  corpus  proceedings commenced on  behalf  of  a
\ndetenu\tdetained  under R. 30 of the Rules as to  any  other
\nhabeas corpus proceedings.  If the Court has jurisdiction to
\ngive  the  main\t relief\t to the detenu at  the\tend  of\t the
\nproceedings,  on principle and in theory, it is not easy  to
\nunderstand  why the Court cannot give interim relief to\t the
\ndetenu pending the final disposal of his writ petition.\t The
\ninterim\t relief\t which\tcan  be\t granted  in  habeas  corpus
\nproceedings  must no doubt be in aid of, and  auxiliary\t to,
\nthe main relief.  It cannot be urged that releasing a detenu
\non  bail is not in aid of, or auxiliary to the\tmain  relief
\nFor  which  a  claim  is made on  his  behalf  in  the\twrit
\npetition.   It is true that in dealing with the question  as
\nto  whether interim bail should, be granted to\tthe  detenu,
\nthe.   Court would naturally take into account\tthe  special
\nobjects\t which\tare  intended to be achieved  by  orders  of
\ndetention  passed under R. 30.\tBut we are dealing with\t the
\nbare question of jurisdiction and are not concerned with the
\npropriety   or\tthe  reasonableness  of\t any  given   order.
\nConsidering the question as a bare question of jurisdiction,
\nwe  are reluctant to hold that the jurisdiction of the\tHigh
\nCourt to pass interim auxiliary orders under Art. 226 of the
\nConstitution  can  be  said  to\t have  been  taken  away  by
\nnecessary  implication when the High Court is  dealing\twith
\nhabeas\tcorpus petitions in relation to orders of  detention
\npassed under R. 30 of the Rules.\n<\/p>\n
It  is, however, urged by the learned Advocate-General\tthat
\nthe order of bail in the present proceedings and indeed\t any
\norder  of  bail\t passed in such\t proceedings  would  not  be
\ninterim\t but  would be final; and that, it is  pointed\tout,
\ndistinguishes  cases of this character from other  cases  of
\nhabeas\tcorpus petitions.  The argument is that if a  person
\nis convicted and he seeks to challenge the legality
\n\t\t\t    349<\/span>
\nof  the conviction by habeas corpus proceedings\t under\tArt.
\n226, the interim bail would be interim in the sense that  if
\nthe  proceedings  fail, the person concerned  will  have  to
\nreturn\tto  jail and run out the sentence  imposed  on\thim.
\nReverting to the case of Keshav Singh, it was urged that  if
\nthe writ petition filed by Keshav Singh had failed, he would
\nhave  been  compelled  to return to jail  and  run  out\t the
\nsentence pronounced on him by the U.P. Legislative Assembly.
\nThe cases in regard to detention effected by R. 30, however,
\nstand on a different footing.  There is no period imposed by
\nthe  orders of detention; they can be renewed from  time  to
\ntime as authorised by the respective relevant Rules, and the
\nobject\tof making the order is to prevent the commission  of
\nprejudicial acts of the detenu.\t In such a case, if the writ
\npetition ultimately fails, it may be that the detenu returns
\nto jails; but his return to jail under such circumstances is
\nnot  comparable to the return to jail of the detenu who\t was
\nconvicted and who was allowed interim bail in proceedings by
\nwhich he challenged the legality of his conviction.
\nThis argument also is not well-founded.\t It is obvious\tthat
\nwhen  the High Court releases a detenu on bail\tpending\t the
\nfinal disposal of his habeas corpus petition, the High Court
\nwill  no doubt take all the relevant facts into account\t and
\nit  is\tonly if and when the High Court\t is  satisfied\tthat
\nprima  facie,  there is something patently  illegal  in\t the
\norder  of detention that an order for bail would be  passed.
\nThe jurisdiction of the High Court to pass an interim  order
\ndoes  not depend upon the nature of the order, but upon\t its
\nauthority  to  give  interim  relief to\t a  party  which  is
\nauxiliary  to  the main relief to which the party  would  be
\nentitled  if  it  succeeds  in\tits  petition.\t  Therefore,
\nconsidered as a mere proposition of law, we see no reason to
\naccept the argument of the learned Advocate-General that the
\nprinciple enunciated by this Court in the Special  Reference
\nhas  no application to habeas corpus petitions\tfiled  under
\nArt. 226 in relation to orders of detention passed under
\nR.   30 of the Rules.\n<\/p>\n
Having thus rejected the main argument urged by the  learned
\nAdvocate-General, we must hasten to emphasise the fact\tthat
\nthough\twe have no hesitation in affirming the\tjurisdiction
\nof the High Court in granting interim relief by way of\tbail
\nto a detenu who has been detained under R. 30 of the  Rules,
\nthere  are  certain  inexorable\t considerations\t which\t are
\nrelevant   to  proceedings  of\tthis  character\t and   which
\ninevitably circumscribe the exercise of the jurisdiction  of
\nthe  High Court to pass interim orders granting bail to\t the
\ndetenu.\t There is not doubt that the facts on which the sub-
\njective\t satisfaction of the detaining authority  is  based,
\nare  not  justiciable, and so, it is not open  to  the\tHigh
\nCourt to enquire whether the impugned order of detention  is
\njustified on facts or
\n350<\/span>
\nnot.  The jurisdiction of the High Court to grant relief  to
\nthe  detenu  in\t such proceedings is very  narrow  and\tvery
\nlimited.   That being so, if the High Court takes  the\tview
\nthat Prima facie, the allegations made in the writ  petition
\ndisclose  a serious defect in the order of  detention  which
\nwould  justify the release of the detenu, the wiser and\t the
\nmore  sensible\tand  reasonable course to  adopt  would\t in-
\nvariably be to expedite the hearing of the writ petition and
\ndeal with the merits without any delay.\t Take the case where
\nmala fides are alleged in respect of an order of  detention.
\nIt is difficult, if not impossible, for the Court to come to
\nany  conclusion,  even\tprima facie, about  the\t mala  fides
\nalleged, unless a return is filed by the State.\t Just as  it
\nis  not unlikely that the High Courts may come across  cases
\nwhere  orders of detention are passed mala fide, it is\talso
\nnot  unlikely that allegations of mala fides are made  light
\nheartedly   or\twithout\t justification;\t and  so,   judicial
\napproach  necessarily postulates that no conclusion  can  be
\nreached, even prima facie, as to mala fides unless the State
\nis  given a chance to file its return and state its case  in
\nrespect\t of  the said allegations; and this  emphasises\t the
\nfact  that even in regard to a challenge to the validity  of
\nan  order of detention on the ground that it is passed\tmala
\nfide,  it would not be safe, sound or reasonable to make  an
\ninterim order on the prima facie provisional conclusion that
\nthere  may  be\tsome substance in the  allegations  of\tmala
\nfides.\tWhat is true about mala fides is equally true  about
\nother infirmities on which an order of detentionmay\tbe
\nchallenged  by the detenu.  That is why the limitations\t the
\njurisdiction of the Court to grant relief to the detenus who
\nhave  been  detained under R. 30 of  the  Rules,  inevitably
\nintroduce  a  corresponding limitation on the power  of\t the
\nCourt to grant interim bail.\n<\/p>\n
In dealing with writ petitions of this character, the  Court
\nhas  naturally to bear in mind the object which is  intended
\nto  be\tserved by the orders of detention.  It is  no  doubt
\ntrue that a detenu is detained without a trial; and so,\t the
\ncourts would inevitably be anxious to protect the individual
\nliberty of the citizen on grounds which are justiciable\t and
\nwithin\tthe limits of their jurisdition.  But  in  upholding
\nthe claim for individual liberty within the limits permitted
\nby  law, it would be unwise to ignore the object  which\t the
\norders\tof  detention  are intended  to\t serve.\t  An  unwise
\ndecision  granting bail to a party may lead to\tconsequences
\nwhich  are prejudicial to the interests of the community  at
\nlarge;\tand that is a factor which must be duly\t weighed  by
\nthe  High Court before it decides to grant bail to a  detenu
\nin  such proceedings.  We are free to confess that  we\thave
\nnot come across cases where bail has been granted in  habeas
\ncorpus\tproceedings  directed against  orders  of  detention
\nunder  R.  30  of  the Rules,  and  we\tapprehend  that\t the
\nreluctance  of\tthe courts to pass orders of  bail  in\tsuch
\nproceedings  is\t obviously based on the fact that  they\t are
\nfully conscious of the
\n351<\/span>
\ndifficulties-legal  and\t constitutional, and  of  the  other
\nrisks  involved in making such orders.\tAttempts are  always
\nmade   by  the\tcourts\tto  deal  with\t such\tapplications
\nexpeditiously;\tand  in actual practice, it  would  be\tvery
\ndifficult to come across a case where without a full enquiry
\nand  trial of the ground on which the order of detention  is
\nchallenged by the detenu, it would be reasonably possible or
\npermissible  to\t the  Court to grant  bail  on\tprima  facie
\nconclusion  reached  by\t it  at\t an  earlier  stage  of\t the
\nproceedings.\n<\/p>\n
If  an\torder of bail is made by the Court  without  a\tfull
\ntrial  of the issues involved merely on prima facie  opinion
\nformed\tby the High Court, the said order would be  open  to
\nthe challenge that it is the result of improper exercise  of
\njurisdiction.\t It  is\t essential  to\tbear  in  mind\t the
\ndistinction  between the existence of jurisdiction  and\t its
\nproper exercise.  Improper exercise of jurisdiction in\tsuch
\nmatters must necessarily be avoided by the courts in dealing
\nwith  applications  of this character.\t Therefore,  on\t the
\npoint raised by the learned Advocate-General in the  present
\nappeal, our conclusion is that in dealing with habeas corpus
\npetitions under Art. 226 of the Constitution where orders of
\ndetention  passed under R. 30 of the Rules  are\t challenged,
\nthe  High  Court  has jurisdiction to grant  bail,  but\t the
\nexercise   of\tthe   said   jurisdiction   is\t  inevitably
\ncircumscribed  by  the considerations which are\t special  to
\nsuch  proceedings  and which have relevance  to\t the  object
\nwhich  is  intended  to be served  by  orders  of  detention
\nproperly and validly passed under the said Rules.
\nWe have already indicated that the learned  Advocate-General
\nhas fairly stated that the appellant has brought the present
\nappeal to this Court not for the purpose of challenging\t the
\ncorrectness, propriety or reasonableness of the order  under
\nappeal\tbut for the purpose of getting a decision from\tthis
\nCourt  on the important question of jurisdiction  raised  by
\nthe  said order.  We do not, therefore propose\tto  consider
\nthe question as to whether the order under appeal is proper,
\nreasonable or valid.\n<\/p>\n
The result is, the appeal fails and is dismissed.
\nAppeal dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
352<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India The State Of Bihar vs Rambalak Singh And Others on 17 January, 1966 Equivalent citations: 1966 AIR 1441, 1966 SCR (3) 314 Author: P Gajendragadkar Bench: Gajendragadkar, P.B. (Cj), Shah, J.C., Sikri, S.M., Ramaswami, V., Satyanarayanaraju, P. PETITIONER: THE STATE OF BIHAR Vs. RESPONDENT: RAMBALAK SINGH AND OTHERS DATE OF JUDGMENT: […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-98415","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nThe State Of Bihar vs Rambalak Singh And Others on 17 January, 1966 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-bihar-vs-rambalak-singh-and-others-on-17-january-1966\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"The State Of Bihar vs Rambalak Singh And Others on 17 January, 1966 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-bihar-vs-rambalak-singh-and-others-on-17-january-1966\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1966-01-16T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-05-05T23:11:05+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"20 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-state-of-bihar-vs-rambalak-singh-and-others-on-17-january-1966#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-state-of-bihar-vs-rambalak-singh-and-others-on-17-january-1966\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"The State Of Bihar vs Rambalak Singh And Others on 17 January, 1966\",\"datePublished\":\"1966-01-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-05-05T23:11:05+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-state-of-bihar-vs-rambalak-singh-and-others-on-17-january-1966\"},\"wordCount\":3225,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-state-of-bihar-vs-rambalak-singh-and-others-on-17-january-1966#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-state-of-bihar-vs-rambalak-singh-and-others-on-17-january-1966\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-state-of-bihar-vs-rambalak-singh-and-others-on-17-january-1966\",\"name\":\"The State Of Bihar vs Rambalak Singh And Others on 17 January, 1966 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1966-01-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-05-05T23:11:05+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-state-of-bihar-vs-rambalak-singh-and-others-on-17-january-1966#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-state-of-bihar-vs-rambalak-singh-and-others-on-17-january-1966\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-state-of-bihar-vs-rambalak-singh-and-others-on-17-january-1966#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"The State Of Bihar vs Rambalak Singh And Others on 17 January, 1966\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"The State Of Bihar vs Rambalak Singh And Others on 17 January, 1966 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-bihar-vs-rambalak-singh-and-others-on-17-january-1966","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"The State Of Bihar vs Rambalak Singh And Others on 17 January, 1966 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-bihar-vs-rambalak-singh-and-others-on-17-january-1966","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1966-01-16T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-05-05T23:11:05+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"20 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-bihar-vs-rambalak-singh-and-others-on-17-january-1966#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-bihar-vs-rambalak-singh-and-others-on-17-january-1966"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"The State Of Bihar vs Rambalak Singh And Others on 17 January, 1966","datePublished":"1966-01-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-05-05T23:11:05+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-bihar-vs-rambalak-singh-and-others-on-17-january-1966"},"wordCount":3225,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-bihar-vs-rambalak-singh-and-others-on-17-january-1966#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-bihar-vs-rambalak-singh-and-others-on-17-january-1966","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-bihar-vs-rambalak-singh-and-others-on-17-january-1966","name":"The State Of Bihar vs Rambalak Singh And Others on 17 January, 1966 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1966-01-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-05-05T23:11:05+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-bihar-vs-rambalak-singh-and-others-on-17-january-1966#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-bihar-vs-rambalak-singh-and-others-on-17-january-1966"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-bihar-vs-rambalak-singh-and-others-on-17-january-1966#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"The State Of Bihar vs Rambalak Singh And Others on 17 January, 1966"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/98415","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=98415"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/98415\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=98415"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=98415"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=98415"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}