Shashi Kumar @ Fukan vs The State of Bihar through its the Principal Secretary, Home Department, Government of Bihar,Patna

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No.3363 of 2025
======================================================
1. Shashi Kumar @ Fukan, S/o Ram Ratan Singh, Resident of Village-
Katauna, P.S.- Katarisarai, District- Nalanda.
2. Ajay Singh, Son of Chandan Singh, Resident of Village- Katauna, P.S.-
Katarisrai, District- Nalanda.
... ... Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through its the Principal Secretary, Home Department,
Government of Bihar, Patna District- Patna.
2. The District Magistrate, Nalanda, District- Nalanda.
3. The Superintendent of Police, Nalanda, District-Nalanda.
4. The Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Rajgir, District-Nalanda.
5. The Station Incharge (S.H.O.), Katarisarai Police Station, District- Nalanda.
... ... Respondents
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioners : Mr. Sudish Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. G.P.6
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL DUTTA MISHRA
CAV JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD)
Date : 11-09-2026

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State.
2. This writ application has been preferred for quashing
the order dated 10.10.2025 passed by the District Magistrate,
Nalanda in B.C.C.A. Case No. 178 of 2025 and B.C.C.A. Case no.
182 of 2025 whereby and whereunder the District Magistrate had
imposed Section 3 of Sub-Section (3) of Bihar Crime Control Act,
2024 (hereinafter referred to as the 'BCC Act') against the

Patna High Court CR. WJC No.3363 of 2025 dt.11-09-2026
2/27
petitioners and ordered certain restrictions and condition for the
petitioners.
Brief facts of the Case
3. It is the case of the petitioners that they have been
falsely implicated in different criminal cases in which they are on
bail and ready to face trial.
4. It is the further case of the petitioners that during the
Assembly Election and Chhath Festival, the S.D.P.O. Rajgir had
submitted report disclosing their criminal history. On the basis of
that report, the Superintendent of Police, Nalanda has
recommended the petitioners as anti-social elements, which
resulted in the registration of B.C.C.A. Case No. 178 of 2025 and
B.C.C.A. Case No. 183 of 2025 against them.
5. After registration of the aforesaid cases, the District
Magistrate, Nalanda issued show cause notices to the petitioners
on 10.09.2025 which has been brought on the record vide
Annexure 'P/1 series' to the writ petition. The petitioners submitted
their reply to the show cause stating that they are innocent and
their implication is because of the village politics.
6. It is the case of the petitioners that the provisions of
the BCC Act do not get attracted against them only due to their
implication in multiple criminal cases.

Patna High Court CR. WJC No.3363 of 2025 dt.11-09-2026
3/27
7. It is stated that the District Magistrate, Nalanda
without considering the reply of the petitioners passed the order
dated 10.10.2025 in BCCA Case No. 183 of 2025 under Section 3
of the BCC Act imposing certain restrictions and conditions on
them. These orders have been impugned in this writ petition which
have been brought on record vide Annexure 'P/2 Series'.
8. It is the case of the petitioners that the orders
impugned are bad in law against the provisions of BCC Act.
Stand of the State
9. A counter affidavit has been filed in this case on
behalf of respondent no. 2 stating that on the recommendation of
the SDPO, Rajgir Nalanda, a proposal was sent by the
Superintendent of Police, Nalanda which resulted in proceeding
under Section 3 of the BCC Act against the petitioners. It is stated
that the petitioners have criminal antecedents and they are habitual
offender. It is stated that though they are on bail in the cases
registered against them but their conduct remained suspicious. The
petitioners were trying to make their influence in the locality, as a
result thereof there was reasonable apprehension of breach of
peace and disturbance of law and order particularly during the
Assembly Election and Chhath Festival. It is stated that as per the
police inputs, the petitioners are anti-social elements.

Patna High Court CR. WJC No.3363 of 2025 dt.11-09-2026
4/27
10. It is stated that the petitioners failed to submit any
cogent material in support of their defence before the District
Magistrate, Nalanda and accordingly, it was held that the free
movement of the petitioners would cause problem to law and order
in the locality.
11. Although in the counter affidavit, the respondent
no.2 has mentioned about five cases against the petitioners lodged
in Giriyak (Katrisarai) P.S., out of which is one case Giriyak
(Katrisarai) P.S. Case No. 185 of 2024 registered under Section
379/411 IPC and under Rule 11/43/56 of the Bihar Minerals
(Concession, Prevention Of Illegal Mining, Transportation &
Storage) Rules, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules of
2019’) and Section 15 of the Environment Protection Act, 1985
within two years, the counter affidavit does not mention about
registration of Sanha. We will, however, rely upon the notice to
show-cause issued under Section 3 by respondent no.2 to the
petitioners. The writ petition states that by this notice, the
petitioners were called upon to explain the following four cases
and one Sanha as mentioned:-
“(i) Giriyak (Katrisarai) P.S. Case No. 148/
2020, dated 13.05.2020 under Sections
420/379 IPC. 04/21 M.M. (D.R.) Act 1957
39/56 Bihar Mineral Prevention of Mining

Patna High Court CR. WJC No.3363 of 2025 dt.11-09-2026
5/27
Transportation and Storage Act 2019
(Chargesheet No. 190/ 2023 dated
31.12.2023).
(ii) Giriyak (Katrisarai) P.S. Case No. 375/
2022, dated 16.07.2022 under Sections
379/420/427/34 IPC (Chargesheet no.
156/2022 dated 31.06.2022).
(iii) Giriyak (Katrisarai) P.S. Case no. 377/
2022, dated 17.07.2022 under Sections
147/148/504/506/448/337 I.P.C. (chargesheet
no. 129/2022 dated 31.07.2022).
(iv) Giriyak (Katrisarai) P.S. Case no. 185/
2024, dated 17.05.2024 under Sections
379/411 I.P.C., 11/43/56 Bihar Mineral
(Prevention of Illegal Mining Transportation
and Storage Rule - 2019 and 15 Environment
Protection Act, 1985, (chargesheet no. 96/
2024 dated 23.08.2024).
(v) Katrisarai P.S. Sanha No. 443 of 2025
dated 15.08.2025”
12. It is stated that in view of these criminal antecedents,
proceedings under Section 3 of the BCC Act was found necessary
to ensure maintenance of law and order and public peace.
13. It is stated that, by the impugned orders, the
petitioners were directed to mark their attendance at a police
station other than the nearest police station in the background of
the fact that the said police station had effective territorial and

Patna High Court CR. WJC No.3363 of 2025 dt.11-09-2026
6/27
operational control over the area where the petitioners' activities
were found to be prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.
However, this Court finds that the petitioners are not accused in
any case registered with Silao Police Station.
14. It is the stand of the respondents that the BCC Act
does not impose any absolute mandate that attendance must be
marked only at the nearest police station and the competent
authority is empowered to issue appropriate directions depending
on the facts of the case.
15. Lastly, it has been submitted that the impugned
orders have been passed on 10.10.2025 and three months' period
elapsed on 10.01.2026 and no subsequent order has been passed
extending or continuing the conditions imposed against the
petitioners, accordingly, the same has now become infructuous in
the eye of law.
Consideration
16. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners
and learned counsel for the State. It appears from the show-cause
notices available on the record with the writ petition and the
counter affidavit that the respondent no.2 registered BCC Case No.
178/2025 (State vs. Shashi Kumar @ Phukan) and BCC Case No.
183 of 2025 (State versus Ajay Singh) on the basis of a proposal

Patna High Court CR. WJC No.3363 of 2025 dt.11-09-2026
7/27
sent by the Superintendent of Police, Nalanda vide Letter
No.2616/DCB dated 25.08.2025 and Letter No. 2610/DCB dated
25.08.2025 were based on the proposal submitted by the SDPO,
Rajgir, Nalanda. On the basis of the said proposal, the District
Magistrate (Respondent No.2) took note of four cases pending
against the petitioners and one Sanha being Katrisarai P.S. Sanha
No. 443 of 2025 dated 15.08.2025. A perusal of the show-cause
notices would show that a general and omnibus kind of statement
has been made that the petitioners are “anti-social elements”.
17. The words “anti-social element” have been defined
under clause (b) of Section 2 of the Bihar Control of Crimes Act,
2024 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the BCC Act’). We reproduce
clause (b) of Section 2, which is required to be read with clause (f)
under Section 2 hereunder for a ready reference:-
“b."Anti-social element" means a person who
(i) commits, or attempts to commit or abets the
commission of any offence punishable under
chapter XVI or Chapter XVII of the Indian
Penal Code; or
(ii) commits or abets the commission of, any
offence connected with trafficking in women
and children under the Immoral Traffic
(Prevention) Act, 1956; or
(iii) commits or abets the commission of any
offence under the Protection of Children from
Sexual Offences Act, 2012; or

Patna High Court CR. WJC No.3363 of 2025 dt.11-09-2026
8/27
( iv ) by words or otherwise promotes or attempts
to promote on grounds of religion, race,
language, caste or community or any other
grounds whatsoever, feelings of enmity or
hatred between different religions, racial or
language groups or castes; or
( v ) has been found passing indecent remarks to,
or teasing women or girls; or
(vi) has been declared as a Goonda as per
provisions of Bihar Police Manual, 1978; or
( vii ) commits or attempts to commit or abets the
commission of offence of manufacturing or
selling or transporting or transferring or illicit
trafficking or converting or repairing or testing
or proving any firearm or ammunition, or being
member of an organised crime syndicate or any
person on its behalf possesses or carries firearm
or firearms or ammunition in contravention to
the provisions of the Arms Act, 1959.
Explanation—1: For the purpose of this sub-
section, “illicit trafficking” means the
acquisition, sale, delivery, movement or transfer
of firearms and ammunition into, from or within
the territory of India, if the firearms and
ammunition are not marked in accordance with
the provisions of the Arms Act, 1959 or are
being trafficked in contravention of the
provisions of the said Act including smuggled
firearms of foreign make or prohibited arms and
prohibited ammunition.
Explanation-2: For the purpose of this sub-
section, “organized crime syndicate” means a

Patna High Court CR. WJC No.3363 of 2025 dt.11-09-2026
9/27
group of two or more persons who, acting either
singly or collectively, as a syndicate or gang
indulging in activities of organized crime.
Explanation-3: “Organized crime” means any
continuing unlawful activity by any person,
singly or collectively, either as a member of an
organized crime syndicate or on behalf of such
syndicate, by use of violence or threat of
violence or intimidation or coercion, or other
unlawful means, with the objective of gaining
pecuniary benefits, or gaining undue economic
or other advantage for himself or any person; or
( viii ) commits or attempts to commit or abets
the commission of any offence in respect of
sand, punishable under the Mines and Minerals
(Development and Regulation) Act, 1957
(Central Act 67 of 1957) or under the Bihar
Minerals (Concession and Prevention of Illegal
Mining, Transport and Storage) Rules, 2019 or
any other law for the time being in force; or
( ix) distills, manufactures, stores, transports,
sells or distributes any liquor, intoxicating drug
or other intoxicant in contravention of any of
the provisions of the Bihar Excise & Prohibition
Act, 2016, Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic
Substances Act, 1985, as amended from time to
time or any other law prohibiting such activities
for the time being in force, and the rules,
notifications and orders made thereunder, or in
contravention of any other law for the time
being in force, or who knowingly expends or
applies any money or supplies any animal,

Patna High Court CR. WJC No.3363 of 2025 dt.11-09-2026
10/27
vehicle, vessel or other conveyance or any
receptacle or any other material whatsoever in
furtherance or support of the doing of any of the
above mentioned things by or through any other
person, or who abets in any other manner the
doing of any such thing; or
( x ) commits or attempts to commit or abets the
commission of any offence, punishable under
Chapter XI of the Information Technology Act,
2000 (Central Act 21 of 2000); or
( xi) either by himself or as a member of or
leader of a gang illegally and unauthorisedly, by
use of force or threat or by any other unlawful
means, takes possession or attempts to take
possession of any land or house or any other
property whether belonging to the Government,
local authority or any other person.
(f) The phrase “commits an offence” wherever
used in relation to an anti-social element in this
Act means a person, against whom, during
twenty-four months immediately preceding the
commencement of any action under this Act,
not less than two cases in which police report
has been filed in the Court of law showing his
involvement in offences referred to in sub-
section (b).”
18. On a bare reading of the definition of the “anti-social
element”, it would appear that a person would come within the
meaning of the phrase “commits an offence” when it is found that
during 24 months immediately preceding the commencement of

Patna High Court CR. WJC No.3363 of 2025 dt.11-09-2026
11/27
any action under the Act, not less than two cases in which police
report has been filed in the court of law showing his involvement
in offences referred to in sub-section (b) [it seems clause (b) has
been wrongly mentioned as sub-section (b)]. Thus, filing of
charge-sheet in at least two cases against the person in the kind of
cases mentioned under clause (b) would be necessary.
19. In the present case, from the show-cause itself, it
appears that the show-cause was issued on 10.09.2025. In the
preceding 24 months, only one charge-sheet is said to have been
filed in a case under Section 379/411 IPC read with Rule 11/43/56
of the Rules of 2019 against petitioners.
20. It is stated in the writ application that the petitioners
filed reply to this show-cause and the same has been
acknowledged by the respondent no.2 in the impugned order dated
10.10.2025, however, no consideration thereof has been given,
saying that the petitioners had not produced any satisfactory
evidence in support of his submissions. Both the orders/ Annexure
2 are in identical words.
21. We have noticed from the pattern of the order(s)
passed by the District Magistrate, Nalanda (Respondent No.2) that
his orders are in the nature of cut and paste as similar kind of
words and grounds have been mentioned in various orders which

Patna High Court CR. WJC No.3363 of 2025 dt.11-09-2026
12/27
this Court has/had occasion to go through. In one of the cases
being CrWJC No.2913 of 2025, the respondent no.2 has passed
similar kind of order in almost similar words which instantly gives
us an impression that the orders have been passed with total non-
application of judicious mind.
22. It is evident that while issuing the show-cause
notices or at the time of passing of the final orders, the respondent
no.2 has not gone through the definitions of the word “anti-social
element”. It is also important to note the meaning of the words
“acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public
order”, which has been defined under clause (a) of Section 2. It
reads as under:-
“ 2. Definition
a “acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance
of public order” means a person is engaged, or is
making preparations for engaging, in any of his
activities as anti-social element, which affects
adversely, or are likely to affect adversely the
maintenance of public order,
Explanation: - For the purpose of this sub-section,
public order shall be deemed to have been affected
adversely, or shall be deemed likely to be affected
adversely, inter alia, if any of the activities of any of
the persons referred to in sub-section (b) directly or
indirectly, is causing or calculated to cause any harm,
danger or alarm or a feeling of insecurity, among the
general public or any section thereof or a grave or

Patna High Court CR. WJC No.3363 of 2025 dt.11-09-2026
13/27
widespread danger to life or public health or
ecological system or disturb the life of the community
thereby resulting in loss of confidence in
administration.”
23. Externment, etc. of anti-social elements have been
dealt with in Section 3 of the BCC Act. Therefore, we extract
Section 3 hereunder for a ready reference:-
“ 3. Externment, etc. of Anti-social Elements.
(1) Where it appears to the District Magistrate that-
(a) any person is an anti-social element, and
(b) (i)that his movements or acts in the district or
any part thereof are causing or are calculated to
cause alarm, danger or harm to persons or
property; or
(ii) that there are reasonable grounds for
believing that he is engaged or about to engage
in the district or any part thereof, in the
commission of any offence punishable under
Chapter XVI or Chapter XVII of the Indian
Penal Code, or under the Suppression of
[Immoral Traffic in Women and Girls Act, 1956]
[Now Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956.],
or abetment of any such offence; the District
Magistrate shall by notice in writing inform him
of the general nature of the material allegation
against him in respect of clauses (a) and (b) and
shall give him a reasonable opportunity of
tendering an explanation regarding them.
(2) The person against whom an order under this
section is proposed to be made shall have the
right to consult and be defended by a counsel of
his choice and shall be given a reasonable
opportunity of examining himself, if he so

Patna High Court CR. WJC No.3363 of 2025 dt.11-09-2026
14/27
desires, and also of examining any other
witnesses that he may wish to produce in support
of his explanation, unless for reasons to be
recorded in writing the District Magistrate is of
opinion that the request is made for the purpose
of vexation of delay.
(3) The District Magistrate on being satisfied that
the conditions specified in clauses (a) and (b) of
sub-section (1) exist, may by order in writing-
(a) direct him to remove himself outside the
district or part thereof, as the case may be, by
such route, if any, and within such time as may
be specified in the order and to resist from
entering the district or the specified part thereof,
until the expiry of such period, not exceeding six
months as may be specified in the order;
(b) (i)require such person to notify his
movements or to report himself or to do both, in
such manner, at such time and to such authority
or person as may be specified in the order;
(ii)prohibit or restrict possession or use by him of
any such article as may be specified in the order;
(iii)direct him otherwise to conduct himself in
such manner as may be specified in the order;
until the expiry of such period, not exceeding six
months as may be specified in the order.”
24. On perusal of sub-section (3) of Section 3 of the
BCC Act, it would be crystal clear that the District Magistrate has
to satisfy himself that the conditions specified in clauses (a) and
(b) of sub-section (1) exist. Only thereafter, he may, by order in
writing, issue directions in terms of clause (a) and (b) of sub-

Patna High Court CR. WJC No.3363 of 2025 dt.11-09-2026
15/27
section (3) of Section 3. In the impugned order (Annexure ‘2’), we
do not find any consideration of these aspects of the matter. A
general and stereotype order has been passed.
25. We have noticed that earlier under the BCC Act,
1978, the State Government framed a rule, namely Bihar Control
of Crime Rules 1978. In one of the cases, the said Rule had come
up for consideration. We extract paragraph ‘10’ and ‘11’ from the
judgment of this Court in case of Rakesh Kumar Yadav @
Rakesh Yadav vs. The State of Bihar and Ors. (CrWJC No.
1667 of 2025) reported in 2025 SCC OnLine Pat 3563:-
“10. We appreciate that learned SC-9 has
himself placed before this Court Rule-6 of
the Bihar Control of Crime Rules 1978,
which reads as under:
“6. While making an order under sub-section
(3) of section 3 the District Magistrate may
ordinarily require or direct the person
affected by the order
(a) to notify his movements to Officer-in-
charge of the Police Station (whether in the
same district or any other district within or
outside Bihar State) nearest to his residence
for the time being or to report himself to the
said officer at such time and place as may be
directed by such officer but not more than
once in a day;
(b) to observe the prohibition or restriction
about possession or use by him of any Lathi,

Patna High Court CR. WJC No.3363 of 2025 dt.11-09-2026
16/27
fire-arm, sharp-edged weapon, any
intoxicant, liquor, opium, Ganja, Charas or
Bhang;
(c) not to be present within a specified
distance from any specific educational
institution, religious place, Mela Hat-Bazar,
Cinema house or place of public
entertainments such as public parks,
restaurants and hotels, or around any public
office on pay days;
(d) in case the Anti-social element removes
himself outside Bihar also to inform the
District Magistrate who made the order of his
address at fortnightly intervals.
11. Learned SC-9 has admitted at the bar that
in terms of this Rule-6 the petitioner could
have been asked to mark his attendance in the
police station only once in a day.”
26. It is well settled in law that under Section 24 of the
General Clauses Act, 1897 (corresponding provisions in the State
General Clauses Act) a rule, regulation, notification or by-law
under a repealed Act does not automatically lapse or get repealed
upon the repeal of the parent Act. Only in case of inconsistency
with the provisions of the re-enacted Act or in case where the old
rule is expressly superseded by a rule made under the re-enacted
Act, the effect of the rule framed under the old Act will vanish.
Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court
in the case of Chief Inspector of Mines vs. Lala Karam Chand

Patna High Court CR. WJC No.3363 of 2025 dt.11-09-2026
17/27
Thapar reported in AIR 1961 SC 838 . Paragraph ‘20’ of the said
judgment is being reproduced hereunder for a ready reference:-
“ 20. The true position appears to be that the
rules and regulations do not lose their character
as rules and regulations, even though they are to
be of the same effect as if contained in the Act.
They continue to be rules subordinate to the
Act, and though for certain purposes, including
the purpose of construction, they are to be
treated as if contained in the Act, their true
nature as subordinate rule is not lost. Therefore,
with regard to the effect of a repeal of the Act,
they continue to be subject to the operation of
Section 24 of the General Clauses Act.”
27. In the case of Fibre Boards Private Limited vs.
CIT reported in (2015) 10 SCC 333 and State of Punjab vs.
Harnek Singh reported in (2002) 3 SCC 481 , the Hon’ble
Supreme Court has affirmed this view.
28. We have noticed that in the case of Kuso Sah vs.
The State of Bihar reported in (1974) 1 SCC 185 speaking for
the Bench, the then Hon’ble Mr. Justice Y.V. Chandrachud held as
under:-
“ 4. * The two concepts have well defined
contours, it being well established that stray
and unorganised crimes of theft and assault
are not matters of public order since they do
not tend to affect the even flow of public life.

Patna High Court CR. WJC No.3363 of 2025 dt.11-09-2026
18/27
Infractions of law are bound in some
measure to lead to disorder but every
infraction of law does not necessarily result
in public disorder. *
6. * The power to detain a person without
the safeguard of a court trial is too drastic to
permit a lenient construction and therefore
Courts must be astute to ensure that the
detaining authority does not transgress the
limitations subject to which alone the power
can be exercised. *”
29. The distinction between a public order and law and
order has been succinctly discussed by Hidayatullah, J. (as His
Lordship then was) in the case of Ram Manohar Lohia vs. State
of Bihar and Another reported in (1966) 1 SCR 709 . We
reproduce paragraphs ‘54’ and ‘55’ of the said judgment
hereunder:-
“ 54. We have here a case of detention under Rule 30
of the Defence of India Rules which permits
apprehension and detention of a person likely to act
in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public
order. It follows that if such a person is not detained
public disorder is the apprehended result. Disorder is
no doubt prevented by the maintenance of law and
order also but disorder is a broad spectrum which
includes at one end small disturbances and at the
other the most serious and cataclysmic happenings.
Does the expression "public order" take in every kind
of disorders or only some of them? The answer to
this serves to distinguish "public order" from "law
and order" because the latter undoubtedly takes in all

Patna High Court CR. WJC No.3363 of 2025 dt.11-09-2026
19/27
of them. Public order if disturbed, must lead to public
disorder. Every breach of the peace does not lead to
public disorder. When two drunkards quarrel and
fight there is disorder but not public disorder. They
can be dealt with under the powers to maintain law
and order but cannot be detained on the ground that
they were disturbing public order. Suppose that the
two fighters were of rival communities and one of
them tried to raise communal passions. The problem
is still one of law and order but it raises the
apprehension of public disorder. Other examples can
be imagined. The contravention of law always affects
order but before if can be said to affect public order,
it must affect the community or the public at large. A
mere disturbance of law and order leading to disorder
is thus not necessarily sufficient for action under the
Defence of India Act but disturbances which subvert
the public order are. A District Magistrate is entitled
to take action under Rule 30(1)(b) to prevent
subversion of public order but not in aid of
maintenance of law and order under ordinary
circumstances.
55 . It will thus appear that just as "public order" in
the rulings of this Court (earlier cited) was said to
comprehend disorders of less gravity than those
affecting "security of State", "law and order" also
comprehends disorders of less gravity than those
affecting "public order". One has to imagine three
concentric circles. Law and order represents the
largest circle within which is the next circle
representing public order and the smallest circle
represents security of State. It is then easy to see that
an act may affect law and order but not public order
just as an act may affect public order but not security
of the State. By using the expression "maintenance of

Patna High Court CR. WJC No.3363 of 2025 dt.11-09-2026
20/27
law and order" the District Magistrate was widening
his own field of action and was adding a clause to the
Defence of India Rules.”
30. In the case of Ameena Begum vs. State of
Telangana and Others reported in (2023) 9 SCC 587 , the
Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as to what act will qualify as a
disturbance to public order. Paragraph ‘38’ and ‘39’ of the
judgment are quoted hereunder:-
“ 38. For an act to qualify as a disturbance to public
order, the specific activity must have an impact on
the broader community or the general public,
evoking feelings of fear, panic, or insecurity. Not
every case of a general disturbance to public
tranquillity affects the public order and the question
to be asked, as articulated by Hon'ble M.
27
Hidayatullah, C.J. in Arun Ghosh v. State of W.B. ,
is this : (SCC p. 100, para 3)
“ 3 . … Does it [the offending act] lead to
disturbance of the current of life of the community
so as to amount a disturbance of the public order or
does it affect merely an individual leaving the
tranquillity of the society undisturbed?”
27
39. In Arun Ghosh case , the petitioning detenu
was detained by an order of a District Magistrate
since he had been indulging in teasing, harassing
and molesting young girls and assaults on
individuals of a locality. While holding that the
conduct of the petitioning detenu could be
reprehensible, it was further held that it (read : the
offending act) “does not add up to the situation
27. Arun Ghosh v. State of W.B., (1970) 1 SCC 98 : 1970 SCC (Cri) 67

Patna High Court CR. WJC No.3363 of 2025 dt.11-09-2026
21/27
where it may be said that the community at large
was being disturbed or in other words there was a
breach of public order or likelihood of a breach of
27
public order. ( Arun Ghosh case , SCC p. 101, para
5)”
31. In the series of the judgments, a recent judgment of
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vijay Kumar Rajpoot
Alias Vijju Vs. State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors. reported in
2026 SCC OnLine 1726 , would further strengthen the law on the
subject. One of the observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court
may be found in the following words:
“…. An order of externment directly impinges
upon valuable fundamental freedoms guaranteed
to a citizen and, therefore, cannot be made as a
matter of routine or on mere ipse dixit . Further,
merely because multiple criminal cases have
been registered against a person would not, ipso
facto , be a ground for ordering externment.
Before exercising such power, the District
Magistrate is required to arrive at a bona fide and
informed subjective satisfaction that the
circumstances of the case warrant such an
extreme measure and that externment is
necessary to prevent the apprehended mischief.
Although the authority is not expected to render
a judgment in the manner expected of a court of
law, the order must nonetheless disclose, at least
in broad terms, the reasons which persuaded it to
arrive at such satisfaction. The existence of
objective material and a discernible nexus
between such material and the conclusion

Patna High Court CR. WJC No.3363 of 2025 dt.11-09-2026
22/27
reached are indispensable safeguards against
arbitrary exercise of power. ... ”
32. In the case of Pandharinath Shridhar Rangnekar
vs. Commissioner of Police reported in (1973) 1 SCC 372 , the
Hon’ble Supreme Court as held held inter alia that
“…...the reasons which necessitate or justify the
passing of an extraordinary order of externment
arise out of extraordinary circumstances...”
33. In the case of Deepak v. State of Maharashtra and
Ors. reported in (2023) 14 SCC 707 , it has been observed that:-
“….. There cannot be any manner of doubt that
an order of externment is an extraordinary
measure. The effect of the order of externment is
of depriving a citizen of his fundamental right of
free movement throughout the territory of India.
In practical terms, such an order prevents the
person even from staying in his own house along
with his family members during the period for
which this order is in subsistence. In a given
case, such order may deprive the person of his
livelihood. ...”
34. In the facts of the present case, we find that the
District Magistrate (respondent no. 2) has passed the impugned
order only on surmises and conjectures expressing an
apprehension that perhaps the petitioners may involve in
disturbing the law and order/public order in the ensuing State
Assembly Election. The District Magistrate had no reason to take

Patna High Court CR. WJC No.3363 of 2025 dt.11-09-2026
23/27
this view as even in the cases registered against the petitioners
within last three years, (only one case and one Sanha), there is no
allegation of disturbing public order.
35. We further find that the petitioners Shashi Kumar @
Phukan and Ajay Singh both were directed to mark their
attendance on every Monday, Wednesday and Friday at Silao
Police Station, which is at a distance of 40 kilometers. They were
deprived of their liberty. There was an order that during the said
period they would not go outside the jurisdiction of the police
station without giving an account of the reasons and the period for
which they require to go outside the jurisdiction of the concerned
police station. This kind of order essentially made them to stay
away from their home giving up their source of livelihood. The
orders were passed for a period of three months and thereafter a
review was to be held.
36. In the present case, while hearing the writ petition, we
called upon the District Magistrate (respondent no. 2) to file a
counter affidavit answering as to why the petitioners were asked
to mark their presence in a different police station despite the rule
that they would be required to mark their attendance in the nearest
police station. In the counter affidavit, we do not find any
explanation for the same, save and except to say that the BCC Act,

Patna High Court CR. WJC No.3363 of 2025 dt.11-09-2026
24/27
2024 does not impose any absolute mandate that attendance must
be marked only at the nearest police station. It has been pleaded
that the competent authority is empowered to issue appropriate
directions depending upon the facts and circumstances of each
case.
37. In our considered opinion, perhaps the District
Magistrate, Nalanda (respondent no.2) has not even gone through
the rules framed under the BCC Rule, 1978, otherwise, he would
not have taken this plea.
38. In our order dated 15.07.2026, we have recorded as
under:-
“Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and
learned GP-6 for the State.
2. On perusal of the counter affidavit filed on
behalf of the respondent no.2, it appears that the
specific question flagged by this Court in its order
dated 06.01.2026 has not at all been answered. In
the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the
respondent no.2, a statement has been made in
paragraph ‘10’ that after verification of the
information, the petitioners were found involved
in criminal cases of serious nature and after
giving the description of the filed cases in
paragraph ‘10’, in paragraph ‘11’ the respondent
no.2 has stated that in view of the said criminal
cases and conduct, proceeding under Section 3 of
the Bihar Crime Control Act, 2024 were found

Patna High Court CR. WJC No.3363 of 2025 dt.11-09-2026
25/27
necessary to ensure maintenance of law and order
and public peace.
3. This Court finds that on record, save and except
the sanha said to have been lodged by the Police
Officer, no other material is available on the record
to demonstrate that what were recorded in the sanha
have been duly verified. No verification report in
form of statement of local witnesses or pointing out
certain acts and omission by the petitioners giving
rise to lodgment of the sanha has been placed before
this Court.
4. Learned GP-6 for the State submits that she will
get in touch with the District Magistrate, Nalanda
today itself and shall inform this Court as to whether
there is any verification report available on record.
5. The hearing is concluded, however, the final
judgment shall be passed after the learned GP-6 for
the State informs this Court as to availability of any
verification report.
Later on
6. Ms. Archana Minakshi, learned GP-6 has
informed this Court that after talking to the District
Magistrate, Nalanda, she has found that no other
material is there on the record.
7. Since the hearing has already concluded, the
judgment is reserved.”
39. On the discussions made hereinabove, it is crystal
clear that respondent no.2 has passed the impugned orders without
arriving at any subjective satisfaction as to the correctness of the
proposal placed before him by the Superintendent of Police,
Nalanda. We are constrained to observe that even the SP, Nalanda,

Patna High Court CR. WJC No.3363 of 2025 dt.11-09-2026
26/27
the SDPO, Nalanda and the SHO, Giriyak Police Station, all have
acted in haste without verification of the allegations made in the
Sanha and they, being police officers, have shown complete
ignorance of the law on the subject. We are afraid, such kind of
police action in haste, just to stop someone from being a part of
the Assembly Election, is not going to help the administration at
all and in all probability, it would bring bad repute to the District
Administration.
40. In result, we set aside the impugned orders (Annexure
‘2’) as regards the petitioners. Since the petitioners have suffered
for three months under compulsion to mark their attendance at
Silao Police Station on every Monday, Wednesday and Friday and
their movements were restricted by the impugned orders, we
direct the State Government to pay a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/-
(Rupees One Lakh) to each of the petitioners with cost of
litigation assessed at Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) within a
period of one month from today.
41. It is settled in law that if the State is saddled with cost
and compensation because of misuse or excessive use of power by
an Executive of the State, such cost and compensation would be
required to be recovered from the erring officials. Reference in
this regard may be made to the judgment of this Court in the case

Patna High Court CR. WJC No.3363 of 2025 dt.11-09-2026
27/27
of K.K. Pathak @ Keshav Kumar Pathak vs. Ravi Shankar
Prasad & Others reported in (2019) 1 PLJR 1051 . The said
judgment was subject matter of challenge in the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in SLP (Cri) No. 003566 of 2019 but the said challenge
failed. Thus, the State Government shall recover the cost and
compensation from the erring officials in accordance with law
after giving them an appropriate opportunity of hearing.
42. This writ application is allowed.
(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J)
(Sunil Dutta Mishra, J)
SUSHMA2/-
AFR/NAFR AFR
CAV DATE 15.07.2026
Uploading Date 12.09.2026
Transmission Date