JUDGMENT Wanchoo, J. - This is an application by Sharafat Husain u/s 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against an order of detention passed against him by the District Magistrate of Mirzapur, under the U.P. Act No. IV of 1947. 2. No order u/s 3 of the U.P. Act No. IV of 1947 has been produced in this case. All that has been produced is a form headed "Warrant of Arrest", u/s 75 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This warrant is in Urdu and is addressed to the Sub-Inspector of thana Kotwari, Mirzapur, and says that as Sharafat Husain is accused of an offence u/s 3 of U.P. Act IV of 1947, the said sub-inspector is ordered to arrest him and produce him before the District Magistrate of Mirzapur. Such an order is not contemplated by U.P. Act IV of 1947. The District Magistrate has to say when passing an order u/s 3, that he is satisfied that it is necessary to detain a person u/s 3(1)(a) of U.P. Act IV of 1947. It seems that the learned District Magistrate of Mirzapur thinks that detention u/s 3(1)(a) of the Act is the same thing as an accusation for a substantive offence and that a warrant u/s 75 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has to be issued in that connection. It is clear, therefore, that there was no satisfaction whatsoever as required u/s 3(1)(a) before the applicant was arrested and put in jail. This order is dated 12th February 1948. On the 2nd March, 1948 what purported to be a notice u/s 5 of the U.P. Act IV of 1947 was given to the applicant. In this notice also it was not said by the District Magistrate that he was satisfied that it was necessary to detain the applicant for maintenance of public safety etc. All that was said was that the applicant was a member of the National Guard and his activities were clear from that and consequently he had been arrested u/s 3 of U.P. Act IV of 1947 and that if he had any representation to make in that connection, he should do so. The first order of the 12th February 1948 was passed by one District Magistrate Mr. S.F. Alam. The notice u/s 5 was given by another District Magistrate Mr. J.N. Tandon. The first order of the 12th February 1948 was passed by one District Magistrate Mr. S.F. Alam. The notice u/s 5 was given by another District Magistrate Mr. J.N. Tandon. In the first place it is the duty of the officer ordering detention u/s 3 to give notice. The Act does not contemplate that one officer should pass an order of detention and another officer, though he may be holding the same office, should give the notice u/s 5. Further, this notice u/s 5 does not, in my opinion, give any grounds or particulars which would enable the applicant to make a representation. It does not even say that the activities of the applicant are such as necessitate his being detained in the interest of public safety or maintenance of public order. All that the notice u/s 5 says is that the applicant is a member of the National Guard and that his activities are clear from this. One does not know which National Guard is meant by these words. It is also not clear how the applicant's activities can be said to be clear from being a member of some National Guard and how they are likely to affect the public safety or maintenance of public order. 3. It is obvious, therefore, that there was neither satisfaction, as required by Section 3 of the Act before the order of detention was passed in this case; nor is the notice u/s 5 in terms which would satisfy the requirements of Section 5 of the Act. Under these circumstances, the detention of the applicant is illegal. 4. It has bean said that orders for the release of the applicant have been passed subject to the condition that he gives a clear and unqualified under, taking that he would not take part in the Muslim League National Guard or any activities subversive of law and order and that he should execute a bound for Rs. 500 with two reliable sureties of Rs. 300. This order is said to have been passed u/s 3, Sub-Section 3 of U.P. Act IV of 1947. I am of opinion that such an order cannot be passed under that Sub-section with respect to a person detained u/s 3(1)(a) and, therefore, the applicant is under no obligation to give any undertaking as demanded. 300. This order is said to have been passed u/s 3, Sub-Section 3 of U.P. Act IV of 1947. I am of opinion that such an order cannot be passed under that Sub-section with respect to a person detained u/s 3(1)(a) and, therefore, the applicant is under no obligation to give any undertaking as demanded. Section 3, Sub-Section 1, contains six clauses from (a) to (f) which specify all the orders the Provincial Government can pass under that Sub-section. Clause (a) says that the Provincial Government can direct that a person be detained. It does not mention imposition of any restrictions or conditions on a person who is being detained u/s 3(1)(a) Clauses (b) to (f) lay down certain restrictions and conditions which a person has to observe if an order under those clauses is passed against him. In Clause (b) a person may be ordered not to remain in any area or place in the United Provinces as may be specified in the order. In Clause (c) he may be ordered to remain or reside in such an area in the United Provinces as may be specified in the order. In Clause (d) such restrictions may be imposed in respect of his activities in relation to dissemination of news or propagation of opinions as may be specified in the order. In Clause (e) he may be prohibited or restricted from the possession or use of any such article as may be specified in the order. In Clause (f) orders may be passed regulating his conduct. Section 3, Sub-section (3) then lays down as follows:- An order made under Sub-section (1) may require the person in respect of whom it is made to enter into a bond with or without sureties, for the due performance or the enforcement of such restriction or condition as may be specified in the order. 5. It is clear, therefore, that the bond is entered into for the due performance or the enforcement of such restrictions or conditions as may be specified in the order. Where therefore no restriction or condition can be specified in the order by the very nature of things, there can be no question of entering into a bond. I have already said that Section 3(1)(a) merely provides for detention. Where therefore no restriction or condition can be specified in the order by the very nature of things, there can be no question of entering into a bond. I have already said that Section 3(1)(a) merely provides for detention. It provides for no restrictions or conditions to be imposed on the person detained, for the obvious reason that if a person is to be detained there is no necessity of imposing any further restrictions or conditions. Therefore when Section 3, Sub-Section 3 provides that bond may be required from a person against whom an order is made under Sub-section (1), it obviously refers to orders made in Clauses (b) to (f) of Section 3, Sub-section (1) and not to Clause (a) to Section 3, Sub-section (1). So far as the order of detention is concerned it has to be revoked unconditionally, there being no provision in the Act for imposing any condition for revoking the order, of course, it is possible for the Provincial Government, after revoking the order u/s 3(1)(a) and relasing the detenu, to pass another order under Clauses (b) to (f) of the same Sub-section, imposing conditions and then demanding bond and sureties, if any. But it is not open to the authority detaining to demand a bond as a condition precedent to revoking the order u/s 3, Sub-section (1). Under these circumstances no bond could have been demanded from the applicant as a condition precedent to his release from detention. 6. Further, I have already held that in this case there was neither satisfaction u/s 3(1) before the order of detention was passed nor has there been a real compliance with the provisions of Section 5 of the Act. Under these circumstances the detention being illegal from the very begining, there is no question of demanding a bond from the applicant before his release. 7. I, therefore, order the release of the applicant u/s 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as he is being illegally detained. The order will be sent to the Superintendent Central Prison, Naini. Copy will be supplied to counsel on payment of necessary cost.