IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. WJC No.503 of 2009 Ranjeet Yadav @ Kanbuchcha Yadav, son of Late Bhagwan Yadav, resident of Village- Basantpur, P.O. & P.S. Pirpainty, District- Bhagalpur ------------- Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna. 2. The Principal Home Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Deputy Secretary Home (Police), Government of Bihar, Patna. 4. The District Magistrate, Bhagalpur. 5. The Superintendent of Police, Bhagalpur. 6. The Superintendent of Sub-Jail, Khagaria --------- Respondents. ------------- 3. 29.7.2009 Heard Mr. Ram Suresh Roy for the petitioner, and Mr. Kumar Udai Bhanu Roy, learned Government Advocate No.IV. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 23.4.2009 (Annexure- 1), passed by the learned District Magistrate of Bhagalpur, and the further order dated 3.6.2009 (Annexure-8), passed by the State Government confirming the same, whereby the petitioner has been directed to be detained under sub-section (2) of Section 12 the Bihar Control of Crimes Act, 1981 (Bihar Act, 7 of 1981), read with Notification No.1761, dated 31.3.2009, of Home (Police), Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna (hereinafter referred to be as the ‘Act’). The impugned order of detention states that the petitioner is a notorious criminal, has been committing very serious crimes, creating terror, and is a threat to public order in his area. He is implicated in six criminal cases of very serious nature and he is making efforts in accordance with law to obtain bail in those cases. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the parties have made elaborate submissions. We do not wish to 2 examine the rival contentions in view of the position that the writ petition can be disposed of on a very short ground. Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, submits that the petitioner has not till date been enlarged on bail and is still in custody in one or more than one of the criminal case(s). In our view, such a situation on account of passage of time renders the impugned order of detention infructuous. In that view of the matter, the impugned order is hereby set aside. Let it be recorded that we have not applied our minds to the merits of the matter, and the impugned order is being set aside solely on the ground that on account of continuous petitioner’s incarceration in substantive criminal case(s), the same is being set aside. The question whether or not an order of detention can be passed in anticipation of release on bail does not arise for consideration in the present case. It goes without saying that it will be open to the respondents to pass a fresh order in accordance with law, if occasion arises. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of as having become infructuous. Vinay/ ( S. K. Katriar ,J. ) ( Jyoti Saran, J.)