Hasty externment based only on SP recommendation quashed; Patna High Court awards ₹50,000 compensation and ₹10,000 costs to petitioner

The petitioner, an elected Panchayat representative, challenged the District Magistrate, Nalanda’s order dated 10 October 2025 in BCCA Case No. 212 of 2025, passed under Section 3(3) of the Bihar Control of Crimes Act, 2024 (“BCC Act”). The order directed him to report at Silao Police Station every Monday, Wednesday and Friday for two months, restricted his movement outside the jurisdiction of Giriyak Police Station without permission, and prohibited possession of specified articles

The proposed action was based on five criminal cases registered against the petitioner between 2018 and 2025 and three Sanha entries allegedly recorded within five days in August–September 2025

The Superintendent of Police forwarded the proposal to the District Magistrate, who issued a show-cause notice dated 3 October 2025. The notice was served on the petitioner only on 7 October 2025, requiring him to appear and submit his explanation on 10 October 2025

The petitioner contended that he was not supplied the relevant police reports, Sanha entries, or other material relied upon by the authorities, and that he had been granted bail in all the criminal cases. During proceedings, the District Magistrate admitted that the official record contained no material beyond the forwarding letters of the Superintendent of Police recommending action against the petitioner

1. Whether the District Magistrate could validly invoke Section 3 of the BCC Act when the record contained no material beyond the Superintendent of Police’s forwarding letters and did not demonstrate that the petitioner satisfied the statutory definition of an “anti-social element”?

2. Whether the petitioner was afforded a reasonable and effective opportunity to respond to the proposed externment and movement restrictions, when the show-cause notice was served only two days before the hearing and the relied-upon material was not supplied?

3. Whether the pendency of five criminal cases and the recording of three Sanhas, without specific and verified material showing a threat to public order, justified the restrictions imposed under Section 3(3) of the BCC Act?

4. Whether the impugned order was vitiated by failure of the District Magistrate to independently and judiciously apply his mind to the statutory requirements and the material on record?

The Court applied Sections 2(b), 2(f) and 3 of the BCC Act. Section 2(b) defines an “anti-social element” through specified categories of criminal or unlawful conduct, while Section 2(f) provides that “commits an offence” requires, during the preceding twenty-four months, at least two cases in which police reports have been filed before a court showing the person’s involvement in the relevant offences

Section 3 requires the District Magistrate to be satisfied both that the person is an anti-social element and that his movements or acts are causing, or are calculated to cause, alarm, danger or harm to persons or property, or that there are reasonable grounds to believe that he is engaged or about to engage in specified offences; it further mandates written notice, disclosure of the general nature of the material allegations, and a reasonable opportunity of explanation and defence

The Court relied on the distinction between “law and order” and “public order” in Ram Manohar Lohia v. State of Bihar, Arun Ghosh v. State of West Bengal, Ameena Begum v. State of Telangana and Kuso Sah v. State of Bihar, holding that isolated or individual criminal acts do not necessarily constitute a disturbance of public order

It also relied on Rajesh Kumar v. State of Bihar and Vijay Kumar Rajpoot alias Vijju v. State of Chhattisgarh for the principles that drastic preventive powers must be based on credible material, require independent application of mind, and cannot rest merely on the pendency of multiple criminal cases

The Court found that the District Magistrate had no material before him apart from the SP’s recommendation and therefore could not have properly examined the allegations in the FIRs or Sanhas, the petitioner’s bail status, or any alleged misuse of bail

The authorities did not establish that at least two cases had resulted in police reports filed within the preceding twenty-four months, as required by Section 2(f), nor did the impugned order analyse the statutory requirements or identify specific conduct showing a threat to public order

The general assertion that the petitioner was a “dreaded and active criminal” and might disturb the forthcoming election was insufficient; mere pendency of criminal cases, particularly where the petitioner was on bail and was not the sole accused, could not establish a real and proximate threat to the community

Further, service of the notice on 7 October for a hearing on 10 October afforded only two full days and did not constitute a reasonable opportunity, especially when the police reports and Sanha entries were not furnished

The restrictions requiring attendance three times a week and prior permission for movement were held to operate substantially as an externment order and were imposed without the procedural safeguards demanded by Section 3

The order was accordingly quashed and the writ application was allowed

Since the petitioner had suffered the restrictions for approximately one month before the interim stay granted on 11 November 2025, the State was directed to pay him ₹50,000 as compensation and ₹10,000 as litigation costs, both within one month from the judgment