IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. WJC No.472 of 2011 Dhanji Singh son of Sh. Ram Pravesh Singh @ Budha Singh, resident of village-Shahpur, P.S.-Sasaram (M), District-Rohtas. Versus 1.The State of Bihar 2.The Home (Police) Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 3.The Under Secretary of Govt. 4.The District Magistrate, Rohtas, Sasaram 5.The Superintendent of Police, Rohtas 6.The Jail Superintendent, District Jail Sasaram ----------- 9. 23.8.2011. In our view, it would be academic, if not inappropriate, for this court to interfere in this matter of preventive detention at this stage. While the petitioner was in judicial custody having been involved in several criminal cases, he was served with present detention order issued by the District Magistrate-cum-Collector, Rohtas on 14.11.2010 which was served on the petitioner on 16.11.2010 in jail. The petitioner has been ordered to be preventively detained for a period of one year. The order of detention itself mentions that the petitioner is in jail custody and is likely to be released which release would adversely affect public law and order. When the case was taken up, we asked learned counsel for the petitioner to inform the court as to what is his status. Learned counsel for the petitioner very fairly submitted that except in one case he is on bail in all other cases. In the solitary case which is under the Arms Act and Criminal Law Amendment Act as also under section 379/424 of the Indian Penal Code he has been convicted. It would, thus, be seen that till date the petitioner is in judicial custody pursuant to the order of the court of competent 2 jurisdiction. His custody is not illegal in any manner requiring this court to issue writ of habeas corpus. Even if such a writ is issued, the petitioner cannot be released. Even if detention order is quashed, his detention does not end. That would continue till the court of competent jurisdiction grants him bail. In that view of the matter, it would be academic for us to decide the various issues raised in this writ petition as it would yield no result. It is well settled that the courts do not decide issues of academic interest unless there is any substantial relief available from the said decision. In that view of the matter, we are not inclined to interfere at this stage. However, liberty is given to the petitioner to challenge his detention once again if he is being detained only by virtue of detention order and not by virtue of any order of any competent court. With this observation, this writ petition is disposed of. Md.S. (Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.) ( Ashwani Kumar Singh, J.)