IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. WJC No.836 of 2009 DINESH RATHORE, SON OF LATE GAFFUR RATHOUR, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- BHOJPUR, POLICE STATION-TARBANI, DISTRICT- ARARIA. …… Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOME (POLICE), GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 2. THE DEPUTY SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOME (POLICE), GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 3. THE JOINT SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOME (POLICE), GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 4. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, ARARIA 5. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ARARIA. 6. SUPERINTENDENT OF JAIL, ARARIA. ……. Respondents ----------- 6 07.01.2010 Heard Mr. Bikram Deo Singh for the petitioner, and Mr. Piyush Lal learned Assistant Counsel to Additional Advocate General no. III. 2. The writ petition has been preferred with the prayer to set aside the impugned order of preventive detention dated 17.3.2009, passed under Section 12(2) of the Bihar Crimes Control Act, 1981. 3. The respondents have placed on record their counter affidavit, and have supported the impugned action. 4. We have perused the materials and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the parties have made elaborate submissions in support of their respective stand. We do not wish to recount them, let alone deal with the same, in view of the position that the matter can be disposed of on a short ground. It is stated in the impugned order 2 that the petitioner is a notorious criminal of his area, and has unleashed a reign of terror. He is involved in a large number of substantive criminal cases ranging from murder to extortion of money. It is further stated in the grounds of detention that the petitioner is making efforts in accordance with law to obtain bail in those cases leading to the impugned order of preventive detention. It is stated in the petitioner’s supplementary affidavit that he has been released on bail in all the criminal cases except Bhargama P.S. case no. 120 of 2008, and his prayer for bail has been rejected by this court. The respondent authorities have, in their supplementary counter affidavit, stated that the petitioner has in fact not been released on bail in three substantive criminal cases. In that view of the matter, it appears to us that there was no occasion for the respondent authorities to pass the impugned order of preventive detention. The same was passed on 17.3.2009, and the petitioner is still in custody in three substantive criminal cases. This should not be taken to be expression of our views on the question whether or not respondent authorities are empowered to pass an order of preventive detention in anticipation of release of bail in substantive criminal case. We rest our order on the sole ground that the impugned order of preventive detention has been rendered infructuous because of passage of time. It goes without saying that it will be open to the respondent authorities to pass a fresh order of detention in accordance with law, if the occasion 3 arises. In the result, this writ petition is allowed. The impugned order of detention dated 17.3.2009, as well as impugned order of confirmation passed by the State Government on 20.5.2009, passed against the petitioner, is hereby set aside. pkj (S.K. Katriar, J.) ( Kishore K. Mandal, J. )