The Patna High Court has held that an order directing a person to mark attendance at a police station away from his place of residence, despite the availability of the jurisdictional police station, is illegal where no rational basis is shown for such a condition.

The Court found that the District Magistrate’s direction under the Bihar Control of Crimes framework had curtailed the petitioner’s liberty through an arbitrary and illogical order, and consequently directed payment of compensation and recovery of the amount from the erring officials.

The Court was hearing a criminal writ petition challenging an order by which the petitioner was declared an anti-social element and directed to mark attendance twice a week at Silao Police Station for one month, despite residing within the jurisdiction of Giriyak Police Station.

A Bench of Justice Rajeev Ranjan Prasad and Justice Kumar Manish held that “It is evident that the petitioner was asked to go to mark his attendance at a place away from his place of residence, leaving aside the jurisdictional police station, which has no rationale in the facts of this case. Before passing of the impugned order on 20.03.2026, the festivals like Saraswati Puja and Holi had already gone. There is nothing on the record that the petitioner had indulged in doing any act or deed so as to disturb public order of social tranquility. The District Magistrate remained completely unmindful of miscellaneous facts. Thus, because of an illegal, arbitrary and illogical order, the petitioner’s liberty had been curtailed for a month. The petitioner has been made to suffer hardships continuously during this period. Thus, I am of the considered opinion that the State Government must pay compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- to the petitioner, besides the cost of litigation assessed at Rs. 10,000/-. The entire amount shall be paid to the petitioner within a period of one month from the date of production of this order.”

Advocate Priya Ranjan appeared for the petitioner, while Kinkar Kumar, SC-9, appeared for the State.

Background

The petitioner challenged the District Magistrate’s order passed under Section 3 of the Bihar Control of Crimes Act, 2024. The order relied on earlier criminal cases and a recent station diary entry to declare him an anti-social element and required him to mark attendance at Silao Police Station every Monday and Friday for a month.

The petitioner argued that the authority did not consider his show-cause reply, that no case had been registered against him after 2021, that he had not been convicted in any pending matter, and that the statutory requirements for action under the BCC Act were not satisfied.

It was also argued that the police station where he was directed to mark attendance was away from his village, though his residence fell within another police station’s jurisdiction.

The State defended the order, contending that the petitioner had criminal antecedents involving liquor, theft and forgery-related allegations, and that action was necessary due to apprehension of breach of peace and public tranquillity during festivals. It also argued that the writ petition was not proper because the petitioner had not availed the appellate remedy and the period of the order had already expired.

Court’s Observations

The Court examined Section 2 of the BCC Act and held that the phrase “commits an offence”, when used in relation to an anti-social element, required at least two cases within the 24 months immediately preceding commencement of action, in which police reports had been filed showing involvement in offences covered by the Act.

The Court found that the District Magistrate did not refer to any recent occurrence or material showing disturbance of public order or social tranquillity. It noted that the petitioner was on bail in pending cases and there was no allegation of breach of bail conditions.

The Court held that the authority had overlooked crucial facts, including the absence of a conviction and the absence of any case after 2021.

The Court observed: “Learned counsel for the petitioner appears to be correct in his submission that the impugned order has been passed by the District Magistrate, Nalanda without considering crucial and significant facts that the petitioner has not been convicted in any of the offences and that no case has been registered against the petitioner after 2021. The law stipulated in section 2(b) of the BCC Act in declaring a person to be an anti-social element has also been overlooked by the said Authority. The impugned order is silent on the said explanation and, therefore, suffers from non-application of mind.”

Referring to Arjun v. State of Maharashtra (2024), Ram Manohar Lohia v. State of Bihar (1966), Ameena Begum v. State of Telangana (2023), Arun Ghosh v. State of W.B. (1970), Kuso Sah v. State of Bihar (1974), and Shiv Prasad Bhatnagar v. State of M.P. (1981), the Court reiterated the distinction between law and order and public order, and the need for proximate, credible material.

The Court held that the jurisdictional conditions under Section 3 of the BCC Act were not satisfied.

The Court stated: “This Court being a constitutional court is under obligation to protect the fundamental rights of the citizens and it cannot remain silent and a mute spectator where the life and the liberty of a citizen are curtailed without following the established procedure of law. Keeping in view all the aspects discussed in foregoing paragraphs, the conditions precedent for invoking a District Magistrate’s jurisdiction under Section 3 of the BCC Act, 2024, having been not satisfied in the present case, no order of externment could have been passed against the present petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner is, therefore, not incorrect, when he submitted that the impugned order of externment is nullity in eyes of law and the contention of the counsel for respondent is not tenable in light of the discussions made hereinabove. This Court finds that the impugned order of externment dated 20.03.2026, is not sustainable and therefore, warrants interference.”

It also held that because the order violated statutory provisions and infringed Article 21 rights, the petitioner could not be relegated to an appellate remedy merely because the order period had expired.

The Court also found a separate illegality in requiring attendance at Silao Police Station despite the petitioner residing within Giriyak Police Station’s jurisdiction.

It referred to Rakesh Kumar Yadav @ Rakesh Yadav v. State of Bihar (2025), where Rule 6 of the Bihar Control of Crime Rules, 1978 had been considered. The Court noted that attendance should ordinarily be before the officer-in-charge of the police station nearest to the person’s residence, and not more than once in a day.

The Court strongly criticised the manner in which the police proposal moved through multiple levels on the same day without verification.

The Court stated: “Surprisingly, all these actions were taken on the same and one date, i.e. on 19.01.2026. The speed with which the report of the Inspector-cum-SHO, Giriyak Police Station, reached to the Inspector, Giriyak Circle, then the report of the Circle Inspector reached to the SDPO, Rajgir, the report of the SDPO reached to the Superintendent of Police, Nalanda and then the Superintendent of Police, Nalanda, wrote Letter No. 159 dated 19.01.2026 to the District Magistrate, Nalanda, would not inspire confidence into the efficiency of the entire system. An act done in haste smacks malafide in law if not in fact.”

The Court added: “It is evident from all these correspondences, which are available on the record with the counter-affidavit, that none of these authorities have applied their mind, no verification of the fact has been done by the Circle Inspector, SDPO and also the Superintendent of Police. There is no mention of any material except the bald statement of the SHO, Giriyak Police Station that he has gathered some information in this regard while collecting information to maintain law and order problem. There is absolutely no basis and no statement of any person has been recorded or enclosed with the report of the SHO, Giriyak Police Station. If the action under the BCC Act may be taken on a mere desire or wish of a police officer, a citizen is likely to suffer hardships in his life in the nature of an irreparable loss of reputation.”

In a concurring opinion, Justice Rajeev Ranjan Prasad underscored that the BCC Act confers drastic powers and that such powers must be exercised on credible information, not imaginary grounds or wishful thinking.

The Court observed: “It is in order to deal with such anti-social elements, who are acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, the legislatures have conferred some drastic powers upon the District Magistrate under Section 3 of the BCC Act. The District Magistrate has been vested with sweeping extraordinary powers under a legislative scheme which has been structured to bypass standard procedural delays in controlling organised syndicates. The administration which has to deal with the maintenance of public order has been conferred with power to pass order of externment and banishment. This provision has been made to tackle immediate threat to public order by an anti-social element. In a catena of judgments, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has been pleased to hold and declare that while exercising drastic powers the authorities vested with such powers have to base their decision on credible information”.

The Court further noted that declaring someone an anti-social element casts legal and social stigma, and relied on Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India (2016), State of Bihar v. Lal Krishna Advani (2003), and Port of Bombay v. Dilipkumar Raghavendranath Nadkarni (1983) to hold that reputation is part of life and personal liberty under Article 21.

Relying on K.K. Pathak @ Keshav Kumar Pathak v. Ravi Shankar Prasad (2019), the Court held that where the State is saddled with compensation due to misuse or excessive use of executive power, it may recover the amount from the erring officials.

The Court directed: “This Court, therefore, directs the State Government to realise the cost and compensation amount payable to the petitioner from the erring officials within a period of six months in accordance with law and report to this Court.”

Conclusion

The Patna High Court allowed the criminal writ petition, set aside the District Magistrate’s order, expunged the aspersions cast against the petitioner, and directed the State Government to pay Rs. 1,00,000 as compensation and Rs. 10,000 as litigation cost within one month. It further directed the State to recover the amount from the erring officials within six months and report compliance to the Court.

Cause Title: Rajesh Kumar v. The State of Bihar

Appearances

Petitioner: Priya Ranjan, Advocate

Respondents: Kinkar Kumar, SC-9, with Sushmita Sharma, AC to SC-9 and Vagisha Pragya Vacaknavi, AC to SC-9

Click here to read/download Judgment

Tags: