Court slams District Magistrate for passing "cut and paste" orders under Bihar Crime Control Act, 2024 without application of mind; directs State to recover costs from erring officials
PATNA, September 11, 2026: In a significant ruling that underscores the sanctity of fundamental rights and the limits of executive power, the Patna High Court has quashed externment orders passed by the District Magistrate, Nalanda, against two individuals under the Bihar Crime Control Act, 2024 (BCC Act), awarding compensation of Rs. 1,00,000 each to the petitioners along with Rs. 10,000 as litigation costs.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Rajeev Ranjan Prasad and Justice Sunil Dutta Mishra, while delivering the judgment in Shashi Kumar @ Fukan and Ors. versus State of Bihar and Ors. (Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 3363 of 2025), strongly criticized the manner in which the externment orders were passed, calling them "stereotyped" and the product of "total non-application of judicious mind."
Background of the Case
The petitioners, Shashi Kumar @ Phukan and Ajay Singh, residents of Nalanda district, had approached the High Court challenging orders dated October 10, 2025, passed by the District Magistrate, Nalanda, in BCC Cases No. 178 of 2025 and No. 182 of 2025. The orders imposed restrictions under Section 3(3) of the BCC Act, directing the petitioners to mark their attendance every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday at Silao Police Station - located approximately 40 kilometres from their residence - based on their alleged criminal antecedents.
The proceedings were initiated on the recommendation of the Sub-Divisional Police Officer (SDPO), Rajgir, forwarded by the Superintendent of Police, Nalanda, citing four criminal cases and one Sanha (police complaint) against the petitioners. The District Magistrate issued show-cause notices on September 10, 2025, to which the petitioners replied, asserting their innocence and attributing the cases to village politics. However, the District Magistrate reportedly dismissed their replies without meaningful consideration and proceeded to pass the impugned orders.
Court's Key Observations
The Court made several incisive observations:
1. Failure to Satisfy Statutory Conditions: The Bench found that within the 24-month period immediately preceding the action, only one chargesheet had been filed - far short of the minimum two chargesheets required under Section 2(f) of the BCC Act to classify someone as an "anti-social element." The District Magistrate, therefore, lacked the statutory foundation to invoke Section 3(3) of the Act.
2. "Cut and Paste" Orders: The Court noted that the orders passed in this case were identical in language to orders passed in several other cases, indicating a mechanical and indiscriminate exercise of power. The Court stated: "The orders have been passed with total non-application of judicious mind."
3. Violation of Natural Justice: Despite the petitioners filing detailed replies to the show-cause notices, the District Magistrate failed to engage with their submissions, rendering the proceedings a mere formality and violating the principles of natural justice.
4. Infringement of Fundamental Rights: Relying on landmark Supreme Court judgments including Deepak v. State of Maharashtra [(2023) 14 SCC 707], Vijay Kumar Rajpoot v. State of Chhattisgarh [2026 SCC OnLine 1726], and Ameena Begum v. State of Telangana [(2023) 9 SCC 587], the Bench emphasized that externment orders directly impinge upon Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution, guaranteeing freedom of movement and personal liberty, and cannot be passed as a matter of routine.
5. No Verification of Allegations: The Court found that neither the SP, SDPO, nor the SHO had verified the allegations contained in the Sanha before forwarding the proposal. The Court noted: "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."
6. Illegal Direction to Attend Distant Police Station: Rules framed under the Bihar Control of Crime Rules, 1978 - which continue to operate under the BCC Act, 2024 - mandate that a person can only be directed to report to the nearest police station. Directing the petitioners to attend a station 40 km away was found to be wholly unauthorized.
Relief Granted
The Court set aside the impugned orders and directed:
- Rs. 1,00,000 compensation to each petitioner for deprivation of liberty over three months;
- Rs. 10,000 litigation costs to each petitioner;
- The State Government to recover the compensation from the erring officials - including the District Magistrate, SP, SDPO, and SHO - after affording them a hearing.
The judgment serves as a stern warning against arbitrary and mechanical use of externment powers by authorities and reaffirms that such extraordinary measures must be backed by objective material, genuine subjective satisfaction, and strict adherence to procedural safeguards.
Bottom Line:
Bihar Crime Control Act, 2024 - Orders of externment must adhere to legal requirements - Mere criminal antecedents or registration of multiple cases do not justify externment unless objective material and subjective satisfaction exist. Compensation awarded for misuse of power by authorities.
Statutory Provisions: Bihar Crime Control Act, 2024 Sections 2(b), 2(a), 3(3, Bihar Control of Crime Rules 1978, Rule 6; Constitution of India, Articles 19 and 21, Bihar Minerals (Concession Prevention of Illegal Mining Transportation and Storage) Rules 2019
Shashi Kumar @ Fukan v. State of Bihar, (Patna)(DB) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2977295
