IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. WJC No.497 of 2009 Bajrangi @ Bajrangi Sahani, Son of Shri Kallu Sahani, Village- Takiyapar Nariyal Ghat, Police Station- Danapur, District-Patna ----- ------- Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Bihar through Home Commissioner, Government of Bihar, Patna. 2. The Deputy Secretary, Department of Home (Police), Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. The District Magistrate, Patna. 4. The Senior Superintendent of Police, Patna -------- Respondents. -------------- 3. 27.7.2009 Heard Mr. Badri Narain Singh for the petitioner, and learned Assistant Counsel to Additional Advocate General No.2. This writ petition has been preferred with the prayer to issue a writ in the nature of Habeas Corpus, after setting aside the order dated 14.5.2009 (Annexure-1), passed by the learned District Magistrate of Patna, whereby he has passed the order of detention of the petitioner in terms of Section 12(2) of the Bihar Control of Crimes Act, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’), and the order dated 25.5.2009 (Annexure-2), passed by the State Government under Section 12(3) of the Act. The impugned order states that the petitioner is a notorious criminal, and he is in judicial custody for his involvement in substantive cases under the Indian Penal Code. The order further states that the petitioner is making efforts for his release on bail in accordance with law. 2. 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 and have cited decisions in support thereof. We do not wish to examine the rival contentions in view of the position that writ petition can be disposed of 2 on a very short ground. We are informed at the Bar that the petitioner continues to be in custody in substantive case(s). We are of the view that an order of preventive detention in a situation where the petitioner continues to be in custody for involvement in a substantive case under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code or any of the penal enactment renders the order of preventive detention infructuous. The impugned order of detention was passed on 14.5.2009, and the petitioner continues to be in custody in criminal case(s). The impugned order has, therefore, been rendered infructuous on account of passage of time. 3. The question whether or not an order of detention can be passed in anticipation of release on bail in a substantive case does not arise for consideration in this case and, therefore, we do not express our opinion on this issue. Let it be recorded that this Court has not applied its mind to the merits of the case. 4. It goes without saying that it will be open to the respondents to pass a fresh order in accordance with the provisions of the Act, if the occasion arises. 5.The writ petition is accordingly allowed. The impugned orders are set aside. Vinay/ ( S. K. Katriar ,J. ) ( Jyoti Saran, J.)