Order.- The Petitioner is a second year student of M.B.B.S., Osmania Medical College. He is charged along with six others with having committed offences under sections 148, 307, Indian Penal Code and section 25 of the Indian Arms Act and section 5 of the Indian Explosive Substances Act. The offence is stated to have taken place on 18th June, 1976 and the crime was registered as Cr. No. 175 of 1976m the Police Station, Sultan Bazar. The petitioner was apprehended along with two others on 27th June, 1976. He was remanded to the Judicial custody, of the II Metropolitan Magistrate, City Hyderabad, for 15 days, i.e., from 28th June, 1976 to 12th July, 1976. The bail petition filed by the petitioner before the Court below was rejected and on 8th July, 1976, a bail petition has been filed by the petitioner before this Court i.e., Crl. M.P. No. 1347 of 1976. That petition stood adjourned to 16th July, 1976. The judicial custody of the petitioner was extended from 13th July, 1976 to 24th July, 1976 and again to 4th August, 1976, and to 17th August, 1976. 2. On 12th July, 1976 the Commissioner of Police issued an order of detention against the petitioner under section 3 of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as MISA). The other two accused who were also apprehended were also detained under MISA. The MISA order was served on the petitioner on 13th July, 1976 and from that date the petitioner continued to be detenu under MISA and the order of detention was not revoked till today. On 16th July, 1976 the bail petition presented to the High Court by the petitioner was dismissed with the observation that the petitioner may renew his application after his release under MISA. On 9th August, 1976, the Government of Andhra Pradesh passed an order G.O. Rt. On 16th July, 1976 the bail petition presented to the High Court by the petitioner was dismissed with the observation that the petitioner may renew his application after his release under MISA. On 9th August, 1976, the Government of Andhra Pradesh passed an order G.O. Rt. No. 3191 and it reads as follows: "Whereas it has been represented by detenue Sri J. Venkata Rao that he is a second year student of M.B.B.S. of Osmania Medical College, that he got distinction in the 1st year, that he is working hard to get distinction in 3rd year class that it is compulsory for him to attend practicals in Anatomy and Physiology as otherwise he will not be allowed to write 3rd year examinations and that he has to put in 75 % of attendance and hence he be released from detention or be granted parole. NOW, THEREFORE in exercise of the powers conferred by section 15 (1) of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971, the Government of Andhra Pradesh hereby direct that Sri J. Venkata Rao, detenu be released temporarily on parole for a period of one month from the date of release, subject to his furnishing a personal security bond of Rs. 2,000 and reporting his movements at the nearest Police Station once a day and subject to such other conditions that may be prescribed by the Superintendent, District Jail, Secunderabad." 3. This petition is filed on 12th August, 1976, requesting this Court that he may be granted bail, the relief portion of which reads thus: "The petitioner, therefore, prays that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to release the petitioner on bail pending enquiry and trial in Crime No. 175 of 1976, of Police Station, Sultan Bazar, Hyderabad, and to pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case." This petition is filed under section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code of 1973. A doubt is entertained by this Court as regards whether a person as against whom an order of detention was made under section 3 of the Act can be released on bail in view of sub-section (6) of section 15. Under sub-section 1 of hat section he was granted parole. 4. A doubt is entertained by this Court as regards whether a person as against whom an order of detention was made under section 3 of the Act can be released on bail in view of sub-section (6) of section 15. Under sub-section 1 of hat section he was granted parole. 4. Section 3 of the Act provides that the Central Government or the State Government may if satisfied with respect to any person with a view to preventing him, from acting in any manner prejudicial to the matters enumerated therein and if it is necessary to do so make an order directing that such person be detained. Section 14 of the MISA provides for the revocation of detention orders. Section 15 deals with the subject-matter of release of persons detained. 5. Sub-section (1) of section 15 reads thus: "The appropriate Government may, at any time, direct that any person detained in pursuance of a detention order may be released for any specified period either without conditions or upon such conditions specified in the direction as that person accepts, and may, at any time, cancel his release." 6. Sub-section (6) of section 15 reads thus: "Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law and save is otherwise provided in this section, no person against whom a detention order made under this Act is in force shall be released whether on bail or bail bond or otherwise." 7. The petitioner in this case is one as against whom an order of detention was made under section 3 of the Act on 13th July, 1976. But the Government of Andhra Pradesh in exercise of the powers conferred upon them under sub-section (1) of section 15, released the petitioner temporarily on parole for a period of one month from the date of his release. That order, according to Sri M.R.K. Chowdary, learned Counsel for the petitioner could not be given effect to, as the petitioner was under judicial custody with respect to Crime No. 175 of 1976, Sultan Bazar Police Station. It is under those circumstances, this petition under section 439, Criminal Pocedure Code, was filed requesting this Court to release- the petitioner on bail, pending enquiry and trial in Crime No. 175 of 1976 of Sultan Bazar Police Station, Hyderabad. It is under those circumstances, this petition under section 439, Criminal Pocedure Code, was filed requesting this Court to release- the petitioner on bail, pending enquiry and trial in Crime No. 175 of 1976 of Sultan Bazar Police Station, Hyderabad. As has already been seen section 3 of the Act provides for the making of an order of detention, whereas section 14 provides for the revocation therefore of detention order. An order of detention therefore, comes into force under section 3 of the Act and continues to be in force till it is revoked under section 14 of the Act. 8. No person under sub-section (6) of section 15 of the Act against whom a detention order made under this Act is in force shall be released whether on bail or bail bond or otherwise. This is notwithstanding anything contained in any other law and save as otherwise provided in that section. The expression notwithstanding anything contained in any other law takes within its ambit the law contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and therefore, a person against whom a detention order was made under this Act cannot be released on bail under the Code of Criminal Procedure so long as that order of detention is in force. Subsection (6) also provides for a situation saving the same which is otherwise provided in that section. That has a direct reference to sub-section (1) of section 15 as per which the appropriate Government has been given the power to direct the release of any person detained under section 3 of the Act. In the instant case an order under that provision was, made by the Government of Andhra Pradesh releasing the petitioner temporarily on parole for a period of one month from the date of release. The benefit of this provisional order the petitioner was not in a position to avail himself of, on account of his being in the judicial custody and he can be released from the judicial custody only by this Court, acting under the Code of Criminal Procedure, particularly under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In that context the question that has to be considered is whether the embargo contemplated under sub-section (6) of section 15 of the Act is attracted to the facts of the present case. 9. In that context the question that has to be considered is whether the embargo contemplated under sub-section (6) of section 15 of the Act is attracted to the facts of the present case. 9. It is axiomatic on a reading of subsection (6) of section 15 that no person against whom a detention order was made could be released whether on bail or bail bond so far and so long the detention order is in force. Sub-section (6) of section 15 itself says: "Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law". In any other law in sub-section (6) takes within its ambit law contained in the Criminal Procedure Code of 1973, particularly those contained in section 439, Criminal Procedure Code. That propositional position is not disputed. Sub-section (6) itself saves certain situations from its purview. One such being the one contemplated under sub-section (1) of section 15. The petitioner was released on parole under section 15 (1). What is the effect of the impact of sub-section (1) of section 15 on sub-section (6) thereof? Can it be said that during the time when a detenue was released under section 15 (1) the detention order is not in force or ceased to be in force. Section 3 of the Act as has already been seen provides for the making of an order. Sub-section (6) of section 15 mentions both about making of the order and the said order being in force. Therefore, the distinction between making of an order and the order being in force is maintained under sub-section (6) of section 15. What happens when the detenu was released under sub-section (1) of section 15 is to allow the existential aspect of the detention order made under section 3 both actually as well as factually to continue in existence. But its operative aspect is alone to be deemed to have been suspended. It is, therefore, manifest that when an order of release was made under section 15 (1) that order of detention cannot be said to have been wiped out of its existence. But its being in force alone is suspended. That idea was brought about in sub-section (6) when it refers to the detention order made under the Act which is in force. The order made continues to be in existence but it was not continued in force on account of the order passed under section 15 (1). But its being in force alone is suspended. That idea was brought about in sub-section (6) when it refers to the detention order made under the Act which is in force. The order made continues to be in existence but it was not continued in force on account of the order passed under section 15 (1). During the term of parole granted under section 15 (1) the detention order continues to be in existence but its operation ceased to be in force though temporarily. If during the time of parole a person in the position of a petitioner was under judicial custody with a view to securing the implementation of that parole order resulting in the petitioner being benefited of the fruits of that parole order the powers conferred upon this Court under section 439, Criminal Procedure Code, can be exercised and the embargo contemplated under section 15 (6) is not attracted to such a situation. By exercising that power by this Court under section 439 of Criminal Procedure Code in effect and substance the order passed under section 15 (1) is implemented, unhampered and unhindered by the circumstance of the petitioner being found in judicial custody. 10. In the case of a person as against whom the order of detention was made under section 3 of the Act which detention order is not revoked under section 14 of the Act and in whose favour an order of parole was passed under section 15 (1) the High Court is competent to exercise powers under section 439, Criminal Procedure Code, which practically tantamounts to implementing the provisions of the Act (MISA), particularly those contained in section 15 (1) allowing the petitioner to avail himself of the benefits of the parole order. Therefore, during the interregnum covered by the parole order under section 15 (1) the embargo under section 15 (6) is not attracted and the Courts are competent to exercise their powers under section 439, Criminal Procedure Code. 11. In connection with this, certain decisions were cited before me drawing the distinction between the jurisdiction exercised under Preventive Detention Act on the one hand and other provisions contained in the Criminal. Procedure Code. 11. In connection with this, certain decisions were cited before me drawing the distinction between the jurisdiction exercised under Preventive Detention Act on the one hand and other provisions contained in the Criminal. Procedure Code. It is not necessary for me to refer to them as the point that is raised herein is one involving the meaning and effect that is to be given to sub-section (6) read with sub-section (1) of section 15 which is purely a matter of construction. For the aforesaid reasons I am satisfied that this Court is competent to exercise powers under section 439, Criminal Procedure Code. 12. I am satisfied under those circumstances, that the petitioner may be released on bail on conditions that he should execute a bond in a sum of lis. 3,000 and he should report at the Sultan Bazar Police Station daily once. If the petitioner wants to leave this place, he must report at Sultan Bazar Police Station before he leaves this place and at the police station of the place where he proposes to go. The effect of this order in point of time is co-extensive with the period of parole granted under section 15 (1) of MISA.