Amit Singh @ Nishant Kumar @ Amit Kumar Singh v. The State Of Bihar Through Principal Secretary Dept. Of Home (Police) Govt. Of Bihar, Patna.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No.356 of 2020 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-704 Year-2017 Thana- BIHTA District- Patna ====================================================== Amit Singh @ Nishant Kumar @ Amit Kumar Singh, Son of Pappu Singh Resident of Village-Basaurha, Police Station-Bihta (Neora), District-Patna. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar through Principal Secretary Dept. of Home (Police) Govt. of Bihar, Patna. Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel Bhawan, Patna. 2.

The Under Secretary, Deptt. of Home (Police) Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel Bhavan, Bihar Patna. Patna.

3.

The District Magistrate, Patna. Patna.

4.

The Senior Superintendent of Police, Patna. Patna. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Sanjeev Ranjan, Advocate For the Respondent/s :

Mr. Pawan Kumar, AC to AG ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. KUMAR ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) 12-11-2020 Petitioner has prayed for the following relief(s):- "For issuance of an appropriate writ in the nature of habeas Corpus, order or direction to quash the order dated 4.10.2019 as contained in Memo No.7/CCA-10-16/2019 H.D.8380/Patna dated 4.10.2019 issued by Under Secretary to the State Government approving the preventive detention order dated 5.9.2019 as contained in Memo No.1-01/192666/dt. 5.9.2019 issued by the District Magistrate, Patna by which the petitioner is being preventively detained under the Bihar

Patna High Court CR. WJC No.356 of 2020(3) dt.12-11-2020 2/2 Control of Crime Act, 1981 for the maximum period of one year and thus both the orders dated 4.10.2019 and 5.9.2019 are liable to be set aside as passed on irrelevant and erroneous ground."

In view of the intervening development, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw the present petition, more so, for the reason that the same has become infructuous.

However, learned counsel prays liberty to file fresh petition, if so required, on the subsequent cause of action. This Court is of the view that no liberty is required but nonetheless, as prayed for, liberty is granted. Petition stands dismissed as withdrawn.

(Sanjay Karol, CJ) ( S. Kumar, J) K.C.Jha/- U