Patna High Court quashes Bihar Crime Control Act restrictions, awards ₹1 lakh each for arbitrary curbs on two petitioners and orders recovery from erring officials

The petitioners challenged orders dated 10 October 2025 passed by the District Magistrate, Nalanda, in B.C.C.A. Case Nos. 178 and 183 of 2025 under Section 3 of the Bihar Control of Crimes Act, 2024 (“BCC Act”), whereby restrictions were imposed on their movements and they were directed to mark attendance at Silao Police Station every Monday, Wednesday and Friday.

The proceedings were initiated on the basis of police recommendations referring to four criminal cases and one Sanha against the petitioners; the petitioners contended that they were falsely implicated, were on bail, and that the proceedings arose from village politics.

The District Magistrate treated the petitioners as “anti-social elements” and apprehended disturbance of law and order during the Assembly Election and Chhath Festival.

The show-cause notice referred to four cases, but, during the 24 months preceding initiation of action, only one charge-sheet appeared to have been filed in an offence falling within the statutory definition of “anti-social element”.

Whether the petitioners satisfied the statutory requirements of being “anti-social elements” under Sections 2(b) and 2(f) of the BCC Act so as to justify action under Section 3.

Whether the District Magistrate had recorded the requisite satisfaction that the petitioners’ movements or acts were causing, or were likely to cause, alarm, danger, harm, or disturbance of public order under Section 3(1) of the BCC Act.

Whether the impugned orders were vitiated by non-application of mind, failure to consider the petitioners’ replies, and reliance on unverified police allegations.

Whether directing the petitioners to mark attendance at Silao Police Station, approximately 40 kilometres away, was legally justified.

The Court applied Sections 2(a), 2(b), 2(f) and 3 of the BCC Act. Section 2(b) exhaustively defines an “anti-social element,” while Section 2(f) requires, for the phrase “commits an offence,” at least two cases in which police reports have been filed before a court during the preceding 24 months, showing involvement in offences specified in Section 2(b).

Section 3 requires the District Magistrate to be satisfied both that the person is an anti-social element and that the statutory conditions concerning alarm, danger, harm, or likely commission of specified offences exist; restrictions may be imposed only after notice and a reasonable opportunity of explanation.

The Court held that ordinary law-and-order problems do not automatically constitute disturbance of public order, relying on Kuso Sah v. State of Bihar, (1974) 1 SCC 185, Ram Manohar Lohia v. State of Bihar, (1966) 1 SCR 709, and Ameena Begum v. State of Telangana, (2023) 9 SCC 587.

It further relied on Vijay Kumar Rajpoot alias Vijju v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1726, Pandharinath Shridhar Rangnekar v. Commissioner of Police, (1973) 1 SCC 372, and Deepak v. State of Maharashtra, (2023) 14 SCC 707, for the principles that externment or comparable restrictions are extraordinary measures requiring objective material, a discernible nexus, and informed subjective satisfaction.

Under Section 24 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, rules framed under a repealed enactment continue unless inconsistent with the re-enacted law or expressly superseded; accordingly, the Bihar Control of Crime Rules, 1978, including Rule 6 concerning reporting at the police station nearest to the person’s residence, remained relevant.

The Court found that the show-cause notices merely and generally described the petitioners as “anti-social elements” without demonstrating compliance with Sections 2(b) and 2(f) of the BCC Act.

Of the cases relied upon, only one charge-sheet within the preceding 24 months related to an offence covered by the statutory definition; therefore, the foundational requirement of at least two qualifying charge-sheets was not established.

The District Magistrate also failed to explain how the petitioners’ alleged conduct affected the broader community or disturbed public order, as distinct from merely raising a general apprehension concerning law and order during an election.

The impugned orders were substantially identical, did not meaningfully consider the petitioners’ replies, and reflected non-application of mind.

The record contained no verification report, statements of local witnesses, or other material substantiating the allegations in the Sanha; consequently, the police proposal was accepted without the District Magistrate arriving at an independent and informed satisfaction.

The direction to report at Silao Police Station, despite the absence of any case there and its distance of approximately 40 kilometres, was also inconsistent with Rule 6 of the 1978 Rules and imposed an excessive restriction on the petitioners’ liberty and livelihood without recorded justification.

It held that the statutory conditions for treating the petitioners as anti-social elements and for imposing restrictions affecting public order had not been established, and that the District Magistrate had acted on unverified material without proper application of mind.

Since the petitioners had been compelled for three months to report at Silao Police Station and had their movements restricted, the State Government was directed to pay ₹1,00,000 to each petitioner, along with ₹10,000 each as litigation costs, within one month.

The Court further directed the State to recover the compensation and costs from the erring officials in accordance with law, after granting them an opportunity of hearing.