Judgment R. C. P. Sinha, J. 1. In this application the prayer of the petitioner is for quashing the order of detention dated the 20th October, 1987 passed under section 12 (2) of the Bihar Control of Crimes Act, 1981 (For short act) by the district Magistrate, Singhbhum at Chaibasa ( Respondent No.2) for a period of one year (Annexure-1 to the writ application) and to issue a writ of habeas corpus to release the petitioner from the detention. The aforesaid order of detention was confirmed on 30-10-1987. 2. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he was accused in two criminal cases. In one of the cases order granting bail was passed on 26-6-1987 and in the other on 17-10-1987 much before passing of order of detention, but the order does not mention or show that the petitioner was ordered to be released on bail and this shows non-application of mind by the detaining authority. 3. In order to appreciate the points involved in this case it is better to quote the relevant portion of the aforesaid order : "in the circumstances, I am satisfied that if he, who is in jail, is allowed to become at large he will indulge in activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. There are reasons to believe that he is likely to be released on bail and if he is released, he will create terror and also intimidate witnesses and the activity of Shri Santosh pathak son of Sarju Pathak Qr. No. L-2/33 Babay Road, Jamshedpur district Singhbhum cannot be prevented otherwise than his detention. " 4. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the detaining authority was not aware of the facts that he was ordered to be released on bail. It is not the caae of the petitioner that after the orders for release of the petitioner were passed in those cases he was released from the custody and was at large. In fact at the time of passing the impugned order the petitioner was in jail custody which is mentioned in the order itself. It has also been mentioned in the order that there are reasons to believe that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail. 5. In fact at the time of passing the impugned order the petitioner was in jail custody which is mentioned in the order itself. It has also been mentioned in the order that there are reasons to believe that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail. 5. After the aforesaid orders for release of the petitioner were passed, the petitioner, of course was likely to be released on bail and come out of the jail custody. Therefore, from the order itself it appears that the detaining authority was aware of the fact that the orders granting him bail were passed and that on the basis of the orders he was to be released. It is true that no specific mention has been made therein (Annexure-lj that the orders for the release of the petitioner were passed in those two criminal cases. From the language of the order, it is clear that the detaining authority was aware of the orders of grant of bail to the petitioner. So, in my opinion, this contention of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that the impugned order was passed by the Respondent no.2 without application of mind is without any merit. On the other hand it shows that the order was passed after full application of mind having knowledge of the bail orders and the order cannot be held to be bad on that account. But that is all. There is one more aspect of the case which requires consideration. 6. As has been mentioned above that the District Magistrate was aware of the fact that the orders for grant of bail to the petitioner were passed but even then he passed the order of detention without giving compelling necessity for detaining the petitioner. The sole object of detention is to be prevention of a detenu from indulging in activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and not to facilitate the trial in criminal case. 7. In the detention order, a portion of which has been quoted above, it has also been mentioned that the petitioner would intimidate the witnesses. So it is clear that the object of the order was to facilitate the trial of the petitioner in the criminal cases pending against him. 7. In the detention order, a portion of which has been quoted above, it has also been mentioned that the petitioner would intimidate the witnesses. So it is clear that the object of the order was to facilitate the trial of the petitioner in the criminal cases pending against him. In that view of the matter it can safely be held that the impugned order was passed for the purpose of circumventing the release of the petitioner on the basis of the bail orders passed in the criminal cases which could not have been done as held by the Supreme Court in the case of Bal Chand Bansal V/s. Union of India and others, AIR 1985 SC 1175. On this ground alone the order of detention is fit to be quashed. 8. In the result, the application is allowed and the order of detention (Annexure-1) is quashed. Let a writ of habeas corpus be issued to Respondent no.4 for release of the petitioner from the jail immediately. Application allowed