ORDER 1. Heard Mr. B.N. Panda, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, and Mr. Debasis Das, Learned Addl. Government Advocate. 2. The Petitioner has been detained under Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the National Security Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), He has filed the aforesaid writ application, inter alia, challenging the order of detention by invoking the extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. 3. During pendency of the aforesaid writ application, an application has been filed on 20.11.2000 for releasing the Petitioner on parole or interim bail, so as to enable him to attend and perform the marriage of his sister. The Petitioner has annexed the invitation card of the marriage which reveals that the marriage was solemnised on 28.11.2000. It is averred in the said application that the Petitioner's father is no more and his participation in the marriage ceremony is very much necessary. 4. In course of hearing the said misc. case on 24.11.2000, learned additional Government Advocate on instruction submitted that the mother of the Petitioner has already submitted a representation before the detaining authority u/s 15 of the Act and that the detaining authority has already forwarded the said representation to the State Government for consideration. It is was further stated that the detaining authority has sought for opinion of the Superintendent of Police, Cuttack, regarding the conditions that may be attached for release of the Petitioner on parole. In view of the aforesaid submissions Misc. Case No. 12270 of 2000 was disposed of by directing the State Government to consider and dispose of the representation said to have been filed by the mother of the Petitioner taking the relevant facts and circumstances into consideration on or before 27.11.2000. It was further directed that the original writ application should be placed for hearing on 4.12.2000. 5. On 27.11.2000, on the basis of mention made by the Counsel for the Petitioner before the Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice, the matter was taken up for orders. Mr..Panda, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, submitted that the representation of the detenu's mother has been rejected by the State Government and prayed that as the detenu's sister's marriage is going to be performed on 28.11.2000 and his prayer for release on parole, for the purpose of attending the said marriage be taken up for hearing. 6. Mr..Panda, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, submitted that the representation of the detenu's mother has been rejected by the State Government and prayed that as the detenu's sister's marriage is going to be performed on 28.11.2000 and his prayer for release on parole, for the purpose of attending the said marriage be taken up for hearing. 6. After hearing the submissions made by the Counsel for the parties, this Court directed the learned additional Government Advocate to remain ready with the file and records in which the State Government has considered the representation of the mother of the detenu and rejected it and the matter was directed to be listed on 28.11.2000. Due to inadvertent reasons, the matter could not be heard on 28.11.2000 and at the request of the Counsel for the Petitioner, the same is heard today i.e. 29.11.00. The learned Additional Government Advocate produced the file of the Government in which the representation filed by the mother of the detenu was dealt with. Perusal of the file reveals that the Chief Minister on 24.11.2000 passed the following order: Perused the order of the Hon'ble High Court dated 24.11.2000 and the views of the S.P. (Cuttack) and the Detaining Authority. It appears from the report of the S.P. which has been endorsed by the Detaining Authority that the detenu even while he was incarcerated in Choudwar Jail he was in touch with the gang members using mobile phone. For the reason, he has been shifted to the Sambalpur Jail. The assessment of the S.P. is that if he is temporarily released he may escape. Accordingly, releasing the detenu for a few days would be detrimental to maintenance of public order. The representation is rejected. The learned Additional Government Advocate relying upon a decision of the Apex Court in the case of State of V.P. v. Jairam and etc. AIR 1982 SC 924 submitted that if persons held on detention are released on bail, the very object and purpose of detention will be totally frustrated. It is further stated that the detenu cannot be released on bail as a matter of common practice and that the Court should not release the detenu on bail without trial of the issues involved, merely on prima facie opinion formed by it. 7. It is further stated that the detenu cannot be released on bail as a matter of common practice and that the Court should not release the detenu on bail without trial of the issues involved, merely on prima facie opinion formed by it. 7. The question, as to whether the High Court has power to release a detenu detained under the Act or parimateria Acts, was examined by the Apex Court in the case of The State of Bihar Vs. Rambalak Singh and Others and in Paragraph II of the judgment it is observed as follows: It is no doubt true that a detenu is detained without a trial; and so, the Courts would inevitably inevitably be anxious to protect the individual liberty of the citizen on grounds which are justiciable and within the limits of their jurisdiction. The Apex Court further held that while dealing with habeas corpus petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution, where orders of detention passed are challenged, the High Court has jurisdiction to grant bail, but the exercise of the said jurisdiction is inevitably circumscribed by the considerations which have relevance to the object which is intended to be served by orders of detention. The matter came up for consideration once again by the Apex Court in the case of Samir Chatterjee Vs. State of West Bengal in which it was held that Section 15 of the Maintenance of internal Security Act confers a power on the Government to grant parole to a detenu. Terms and conditions which should be imposed for such temporary release of a detenu have been enumerated in paragraph 15 of the judgment which are quoted herein below: (1) 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, it any time, cancel his release. (2) In directing the release of any person under Sub-section (1), the appropriate Government may require him to enter into a bond with or without sureties for the due observance of the conditions specified in the direction. (3) Any person released under Sub-section (1) shall surrender himself at the time and place, and to the authority specified in the order directing his release or cancelling his release, as the case may be. (3) Any person released under Sub-section (1) shall surrender himself at the time and place, and to the authority specified in the order directing his release or cancelling his release, as the case may be. (4) If any person fails without sufficient cause to surrender himself in the manner specified in Sub-section (3), he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both. (5) If any person released under Sub-section (1) fails to fulfil any of the conditions imposed upon him under the said Sub-section or in the bond entered into by him, the bond shall be declared to be forfeited and any person bound thereby shall be liable to pay the penalty thereof. The Apex Court further observed that it would be fair that persons kept incarcerated and embittered without trial should be given some chance to reform themselves by reasonable recourse to the parole power u/s 15. Calculated risks by release for short period may, perhaps, be a social gain, the beneficent jurisdiction being wisely exercised. (Emphasis supplied) 8. In the case of Rambalak Singh Balak and Ors. (supra) while dealing with a case under the Defence of India Rules, the Apex Court observed that if the Court has jurisdiction to grant the main relief to the detenu at the end of the proceedings, on principle and in theory, it is not easy to understand why the Court cannot give interim relief to the detenu pending the final disposal of his writ petition. In the said decision, the Apex Court has clearly held that the High Court has authority and jurisdiction to grant interim bail while dealing with "habeas corpus" petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. However, it has been held that exercise of said jurisdiction is inevitably circumscribed by the considerations which are special to such proceedings and which have relevance to the object which is intended to be served by orders of detention properly and validly passed under the Rules. However, it has been held that exercise of said jurisdiction is inevitably circumscribed by the considerations which are special to such proceedings and which have relevance to the object which is intended to be served by orders of detention properly and validly passed under the Rules. Keeping in view the aforesaid principles laid down by the Apex Court, we have no hesitation to hold that this Court has authority and jurisdiction to grant bail to a detenu if it comes to the conclusion on available materials that government has failed to exercise the powers conferred upon it to grant parole and/or arbitrarily rejected the representation filed on behalf of the detenu. This conclusion of ours is fortified by the observation made in the case of Babulal Das Vs. The State of West Bengal, wherein it has been observed as follows: We hope the humanist mandate in Section 15 of the MISA will not rust in the statute book but will be used by Government to humanise, by gradual assimilation into society, those who, with blood-shot eyes, hate and intimidate their fellow men. The rare use of this provision suggests that the compassion and conscience of the law must be actively shared by the men who operate the machine from executive cells. However, the power of the Court should be aparingly used only in -exceptional cases and while doing so the Court should not substitute its own reasonings to that of Government. 9. In the present case, the only reason assigned by the Government while rejecting the representation filed by the mother of the detenu is in the assessment of the Superintendent of Police, if the detenu is temporarily released he may escape and that releasing the detenu for a few days would be detrimental to maintenance of public order. It is no doubt true that release of the detenu in parole involves certain calculated risk, but as has been observed by the Apex Court in Samir Chatterjee's case (supra), by release for short period may, perhaps, be a social gain and may go a long way in reporting a hardened criminal. 10. On the basis of the discussions made above, we would have persuaded ourselves to release the detenu in parole for a couple of days with a direction to the State Government to make adequate arrangement, so that the detenu cannot escape and also by imposing suitable conditions. 10. On the basis of the discussions made above, we would have persuaded ourselves to release the detenu in parole for a couple of days with a direction to the State Government to make adequate arrangement, so that the detenu cannot escape and also by imposing suitable conditions. But as the marriage of the sister of the detenu is over since 28.11.2000, no useful purpose would be served in releasing the Petitioner on parole. The Petitioner has filed further affidavit praying to release him on parole so as to enable him to attend the reception to be held in the house of the In-laws of his sister. We are not inclined to accept the said prayer as there is no urgency inviting exercise of the extra-ordinary jurisdiction. 11. In view of the above, we are not inclined to exercise our extra-ordinary jurisdiction in the present case and the misc. case is accordingly dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed