Bald police ‘Sanha’ entry cannot justify Bihar Crime Control Act restrictions; Patna HC quashes attendance order and awards ₹1.1 lakh to petitioner

The petitioner challenged the show-cause notice dated 26 August 2025 and the order dated 8 September 2025 passed by the District Magistrate, Banka in Bihar Crime Control Case No. 14/2025–26.

By the impugned order, the District Magistrate rejected the petitioner’s explanation and directed him to report at Barahat Police Station every day from 10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., purportedly under Section 3(3) of the Bihar Crime Control Act, 2024 (“BCC Act”).

The petitioner had been charge-sheeted in Katoria P.S. Case Nos. 178 of 2024 and 165 of 2024, in which he had been granted bail by the High Court.

The police relied principally upon a Sanha/station-diary entry stating that, after release on bail, the petitioner was allegedly meeting persons of suspicious character and might disturb public peace during forthcoming festivals or elections.

Whether the District Magistrate had sufficient legally probative material to conclude that the petitioner was an “anti-social element” and that the conditions under Section 3(1)(b) of the BCC Act were satisfied so as to invoke Section 3(3)?

Whether the Sanha/station-diary entry, without specific and verifiable particulars of the petitioner’s alleged activities, could justify a finding that his movements or acts were causing or were calculated to cause alarm, danger, harm, or disturbance of public order?

Whether the direction requiring the petitioner to remain at Barahat Police Station from 10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. daily complied with Rule 6 of the Bihar Control of Crimes Rules, 1978?

Whether the petitioner was entitled to compensation and costs for infringement of his rights under Article 21 of the Constitution?

The Court applied Section 2(b), read with Sections 2(f) and 2(g), of the BCC Act, which defines an “anti-social element” and requires, in relation to relevant offences, at least two cases in the preceding twenty-four months in which police reports have been filed showing the person’s involvement.

Section 3(1) requires satisfaction both that the person is an anti-social element and that his movements or acts cause or are calculated to cause alarm, danger or harm, or that there are reasonable grounds to believe that he is engaged or about to engage in specified offences; only upon satisfaction of these conditions may an order be made under Section 3(3).

Section 8 permits consideration of evidence having probative value, although the Evidence Act does not strictly apply, thereby requiring the District Magistrate to rely on tangible and reliable material.

Rule 6(a) of the Bihar Control of Crimes Rules, 1978 ordinarily permits requiring a person to notify movements or report to the police station nearest to his residence, but not more than once a day.

The Court relied on Ram Manohar Lohia v. State of Bihar , Arun Ghosh v. State of West Bengal , Kuso Sah v. State of Bihar , Ameena Begum v. State of Telangana and Arjun v. State of Maharashtra for the principle that every breach of law and order does not amount to disturbance of public order; preventive or restrictive powers must be exercised cautiously and on material demonstrating an impact on the community or the general public.

It also relied on Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India and State of Bihar v. Lal Krishna Advani for the proposition that reputation forms part of life and personal liberty under Article 21.

The Court found that the petitioner’s two criminal cases, although charge-sheeted, did not by themselves demonstrate conduct affecting public peace or order; the cases related to offences against the human body and property, and the petitioner had been granted bail in both.

The only material supporting the restrictive order was the Sanha entry, which merely referred to information from unspecified “reliable sources,” unidentified persons of suspicious character, and a general apprehension that the petitioner might commit an offence during an upcoming festival or election.

It contained no particulars of any meeting, date, venue, communication, call record, tower location, or subsequent verification.

Accordingly, the Sanha entry lacked sufficient probative value and could not establish either that the petitioner’s movements were causing or were calculated to cause alarm, danger or harm, or that he was likely to disturb public order.

Applying the distinction between ordinary law-and-order problems and public-order disturbance, the Court held that the statutory conditions precedent to Section 3(3) were absent.

Independently, the reporting direction was held contrary to Rule 6 because it required attendance at a police station 40 kilometres away and continuous presence there for seven hours, rather than reporting once daily at the nearest police station.

The Court treated the resulting interference with the petitioner’s livelihood and personal liberty as an Article 21 violation warranting public-law compensation and costs.

It held that the statutory conditions for imposing the restrictive direction were not established by reliable or probative material and that the attendance requirement independently violated Rule 6 of the 1978 Rules.

The State was directed to pay the petitioner compensation of ₹1,00,000 and costs of ₹10,000 within one month; the Court further directed that these amounts be recovered from the erring officials within six months in accordance with law.